If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?
Removed by mod
I did not assert that the court gave full immunity for all things, but will now suggest that not every crime is a violation of the constitution, or could not be committed while carrying out a function of the constitution.