Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Is it constitutional to have a separate law covering threats against the U.S. president?

0
Posted

Is it constitutional to have a separate law covering threats against the U.S. president?

0

Yes. In Watts v. United States (1969,) the U.S. Supreme Court noted that “the statute under which petitioner was convicted (18 U. S. C. S. ยง 871) is constitutional on its face. The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123