it is a federal crime to thteaten a candidate for certain offices. of course the statute could be unconstitutional if the 2nd am. protects such threats. if actual violence is implicitly sanctioned under oppressive circumstances under the 2nd am , then certainly mere words would be protected too.
but…
i doubt any federal j. would find that “dont threaten the president”statute unconstitutional on its face because some lawyer says the constitution trumps the federal statute.
i dont think the courts would find that the 2nd ams’. purpose is to allow for killing tyrants, federalist papers notwithstanding.
of course, the 2nd am. dudes response to that judicial ruling might be that those are tyrannical judges who cannot understand the plain meaning of the constitution and need killin’. cause theyre part of an oppressive tyrranical regime
which also really doesnt sit right with me.
im pretty sure the way we understand the purpose of the 2nd am. now, legally, is that it is not for the purpose of over throwing disliked politicians or govt. employees, collectively or individually.
