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

[RoadRunner79]

The constitution is the law of the land. It says we have a right to due process, and a right to petition.  If there was no process...then there could be no due process or petition.

One would most likely find that there is a process and an appeals process..they simply weren't involved in the decision to revoke acostas pass.  It's more than a little bit pointless, imo, to argue in effect that the government followed the rules..but, at court, simply decided not to explain how they did so.  Calling the decision of a federalist society trump appointee liberal, repeatedly, explains nothing about the issue at hand.

I didn't call him liberal,  I don't know the judge.   I called the interpretation liberal.   And it seems that he did petition the government, and won.   So I don't find this a very compelling argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

In what way is the interpretation liberal?

---

He appealed to the judiciary, btw.

[RoadRunner79]

Then that's that.  If he was not afforded due process, the administration is in breach of the 5th.  Because of this, and the fact that there must -be- a process to which one can appeal for the 1st amendment to be operative...they are in breach of this amendment as well.

Due process under the law.... I'm still asking what law or process you are referring to.  You can't just quote a part of something and use the words as they where not intended.   Which is why I have asked about context.   That is called prooftexting, and because this and the disregard for context, is why I call it a liberal interpretation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly........................?

By what process was his pass revoked?  If the admins lawyers could have answered this question there would be no case. The context is that a person was deprived of their 5th amendment rights. What is liberal about this?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's being proofed out?  What could be more literal than the fact that no process precludes any possibility that due process was applied?

[RoadRunner79]

What's being proofed out?  What could be more literal than the fact that no process precludes any possibility that due process was applied?

The phrase is "proof texted"   which is why I've been asking how "under the law"  plays into this in your view of this, and about the context of the rest of the amendment which has to do with law and criminal persecution.   It's also why it's been asked, if I or another asked for special access to the white house or a press pass, what procedures do they need to go through if they tell me no?

[Tiberius]

@RoadRunner79 go back and read my post regarding the "under the law" part of that amendment. You think it means that the amendment only applies to matters of law. It does not. It means that the government can't deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without a legally defined process.

That is to say, the government can't kill a citizen...unless they follow a legal process (e.g. a trial -> conviction by jury -> death penalty judgement -> appeals process -> execution).

In the case of Acosta, the government revoked his press pass. Acosta challenged the government in court, and in court, the government couldn't say which process they'd followed to revoke his press pass. That alone means the action was unconstitutional. However even if they had followed a process, did they allow Acosta to appeal? If not, then again, they would be acting unconstitutionally.

[RoadRunner79]

@RoadRunner79 go back and read my post regarding the "under the law" part of that amendment. You think it means that the amendment only applies to matters of law. It does not. It means that the government can't deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without a legally defined process.

That is to say, the government can't kill a citizen...unless they follow a legal process (e.g. a trial -> conviction by jury -> death penalty judgement -> appeals process -> execution).

In the case of Acosta, the government revoked his press pass. Acosta challenged the government in court, and in court, the government couldn't say which process they'd followed to revoke his press pass. That alone means the action was unconstitutional. However even if they had followed a process, did they allow Acosta to appeal? If not, then again, they would be acting unconstitutionally.

So is a press pass a privilege, or a right.   If it is a right, then doesn't it apply to all?   I don't see where this is a matter under the law.... no one has pointed to any legal process it would be under.  What process would they have to go through to deny my entrance into the white house such that Acosta has.  I think they would just say no.

[The Grand Nudger]

Due process is a right.  Petition is a right. The problem, that has caused them trouble..is exactly that they could point to no law, no process..no nothing. They declined to offer any information whatsoever.