Federal Judge Orders White House To Temporarily Restore Press Access To Jim Acosta

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, I think that is a fairly liberal interpretation with no regard for the spirit in which the amendment it is written.  I don't see white house press conference as a liberty, but a privilege.  As I had asked, if I was invited to the white house, and then I said or did something which then proceeded with them asking me to leave; would that really be denying me liberty as afforded by the constitution?  I also do not think that if I asked for a press pass, because I am reporting about it here, that I am being denied my liberty if I am denied that pass.  I don't see where due process (in the context of the amendment)  comes into it.   If you want to get that liberal in interpretation, then Acosta was denying that intern from doing her job, by pushing her away.

Well firstly Acosta wasn’t asked to leave, he was told to put down the mic. This was, I believe, after he’d started asking his second question. He was ultimately allowed to ask the second question. Only afterwards were his credentials taken away. It was hinted that the reasoning wasn’t that he refused to put down the mic, but that he put his hands on a female intern, which was dubious at best. Anyone watching the video can see that the intern was reaching for the mic and the contact was incidental.

Secondly, He didn’t ask Trump for a press pass, he’s had one for years. I’m not saying that denying a press pass would be unconstitutional, however taking one away for no good reason would be, which is what the judge found.

Finally, the 5th amendment has to do with actions performed by the government, Acosta is not a member of the government so even if he prevented the intern from doing her job, it’s not covered by the 5th. That’s why this forum can ban people from swearing in this thread but not violate the 1st amendment freedom of speech.

The fifth amendment as I read it, has to do with law and punishment.   It was established as a way to prevent corrupt government from persecuting and wrongfully attacking people through the law, without just cause.  The closest thing there is the clause "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" unless you have something else in mind.   And here, I find that due process of the law, is just being abbreviated to due process.  It's not a matter of law, but the White House revoking a privilege to an individual.  They don't need to involve the courts to do so.  

I also disagree, that it was just incidental contact with the female intern, as can be seen by her reaction.  He was clearly pushing her away from getting the microphone (whether intentional or reactionary)   And again, I agree, that this contact has been overblown by some.   Was he denying her liberty by preventing her from doing her job?   I think that overstating the contact made, is as much a misrepresentation as overblowing this, to make it as the administration is trying to take away constitutional rights of this individual and almost as ridiculous as saying they are denying freedom of the press, and freedom of speech (as was included in their original suit and is being touted by the ACLU). 

Such liberal interpretation of the constitution can lead to much of what it was trying to prevent, and can be made to say most anything.  I can understand disagreement with the action, and perhaps it was a rash decision and not the best course of action. However trying to make it a constitutional rights issue, is stretching things pretty thin.  It will be interesting to see the Presidents rules of decorum in the future and how this all plays out, for sure.