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?
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.
You’ve clearly been living under a rock the past 8 years if you think this is true.
Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don’t you? You must have missed the part where it’s only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
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.