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?
I can answer for him/her. He/she isn’t a polotician, nor appointed by them. So he/she is more qualified to not exaggerate the truth to make newspaper headlines. And clearly he/she can read.
The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?
Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.
As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.
In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.
Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.
So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.
Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.