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

[RoadRunner79]

Here is where I explained before why I think applying this as a fifth amendment issue is a rather liberal interpretation.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-57313-p...pid1852073

As I explained previously I think it is a broad and non literal interpretation of the constitution, that is not taking a literal approach to the context and intent of the authors. It is proof texting (note the omission of under the law from quotes) and therefore is trying to appeal to it as an authority, but not using the original intent or meaning of the writings. If you think that it is applicable, then please explain what due process under the law means in this context. Specifically the word law. I think that being given special access to the White House is a privilege and not part of the rights given to all by the constitution. 

You can't just proof text the words "due process" out, and apply them without context.   A press pass is not something that is owed or that people are entitled to.   There apparently was not process set up which was violated or bypassed that I've seen.  And I don't think that it is a matter which falls under any laws (at least you have not cited any) or given reason that this should be under the law.