Biden - Approval

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 02:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will say one thing on that topic, that is also in line with the thread topic.  The SCOTUS has clearly, and unequivocally stated, that an "assault weapon" ban would be unconstitutional on its face.  How is Biden not betraying his oath of office by publicly stating he is bound and determined to pass a law that has already been declared unconstitutional?  

https://www.newsweek.com/not-joke-biden-insists-hell-reinstate-ban-assault-weapons-1750979

Wasn't there a ban o semiautomatics in place until 2004? [I just realize it's in the article] I ask for that could mean that such a law being unconstitutional might be a temporary assessment instead of one set in stone. This is what I'd say, the SC is not so much a guardian for the constituton these days as it is a political branch of government, as political as the other two really. Five liberal judges might very well have a different take an such a law.

Sure I'd also say the constitution is not to be treated like Christians treat the Bible. It is open to interpretation, to a certain bending, and in the end also for being amended. In that sense alone, I think it's fine to demand laws that might not be in line with the constitution in its current form and its current interpretation by a conservative SC. Constitutions and/or interpretations can legitimately change, if the public support is there and the ballot box shows as much for example.