Judge orders Trump administration to restore Acosta's press pass

Did I say that it was public property like a restaurant?

 

Yes, you quite literally called it public property. And I'm here to say 'no'. See, the Presidency is beholden to the public. As is Congress. But neither you or I can just waltz right in there. Unlike public sector buildings(and even then of course, if a store is closed. It's *closed*).

The WH is a house of residency, it is quite literally private property. Not owned by Trump of course, but by the US. The Media does not own it, we do not own it. It is property of the official 'State Government of the United States'(If we were to fill a legal filing.)

The long and short of it is, the administration could make a very strong Fourth Amendment argument on the grounds of who it wants in or out, or not. Now, will a Judge accept that argument? As of now, the administration isn't making that argument so we'll never know but I think legally it holds its muster.

(That this is in question, shows that Judges are political, and the truth IMO that Judges/State jockey for influence and power in the Nation.)

 

I said it was public property (i.e., property owned by a local, state or national government). Your claim that a restaurant is public property seems to be odd. It is owned by someone other than the government which makes it private property. Restaurants are open the public, but not public property. I don't think you have your definitions correct for public vs private property. Property owned by a government is public property, but that does not make it necessary open to the public. State/federal ownership does not mean that is private property because that is reserved for property that is owned by any entity but a government.

 

I think they'll give it back along with a written code of conduct that all members of the Press corps must sign and follow.

 

And why did that Code of Conduct not exist before?

The other thing I'd like to comment on is Donald's suggestion that he not hold Pressers...i.e. he will 'boycott' them. Well, that works both ways, doesn't it. From the outside looking in, Donald is trying to re-invent the wheel. "Not even you Donald, can beat City Hall with a Constitution standing in your way."

 

You need to frame whatever you are trying to say there and present it in context.

 

Acosta can have his credentials back but he can also be ignored by el POTUS. Fox Network could have m are believe that Shaun Vannity was a journalist and sent him to the WH but Obama could have ignored him.

There are more ways than just a POTUS throwing a toddler like hissy fit to stop a reporter from asking questions.

 

this is not a constitutional issue. alex jones is allowed to speak, and he will be held accountable for his language.

 

Easy fix. Set the rules, he’ll break them.

 

There are rules for the press pass. There are no rules for asking questions because that would be a 1A violation.

 

Unless it has to do with guns then screw the Constitution apparently.

 

You should see the hissy fit Acosta throws. He frames questions as an accusation.

 

The whites house just punked CNN. I hope the president himself calls on Acosta today

 

There are now thanks to Acosta and his childish behavior

 

All laws are or at least should be based on the Constitution

 

I have been following your argument and you are treading water. There is an agency who's primary job is to control access to the White House and the president. It isn't a public property any more than Cheyenne Mountain. I know you are trying to split hairs here but it isn't working.

 

It is the very definition of public property.

 

Per the Constitution the President = any President = is only required to give only one address, either written or verbal, to the Congress once a year. That is it. He is not required to hold press conferences or interviews to anyone. So, if he really wanted to follow the Constitution he would in plain language tell the judge to go ____ himself. His cabinet secretaries are required to submit reports to the Congress Critters.

 

I can agree with that but the issue is does the President have the right to bar anyone from the White House grounds? I say that he does for any reason or no reason. The judge is plainly wrong and trump is wrong for respecting his ruling.

 

I really don't see this as a freedom of the press issue, the Constitutional guarantee of this freedom has to do with uncensored publication.

 

Those are his requirements to Congress. He has more responsibilities to the general public.

 

Why do you think the President has that power? He isn't King. Does a mayor have the right to bar you from City Hall?

 

In the age of civility it didn't need to be spelled out in a contract signed by either the individual networks or reporters. Today we are in a new day. Boorish ignorant rubes like Acosta have made a written spelled out code of conduct necessary. However, Neanderthals can't help themselves and I foresee him being ejected again without recourse.

 

You really *REALLY* don't know how the 1A works. Go, read the amendment and realize why this argument by the media doesn't fly. They only have freedom to report and print press. That's all. They don't have any special god privileges. If the President doesn't want to reply, hell if he doesn't want to so much as see them, he doesn't have to.

It's what I would've done from the beginning, given the harassment to the press secretary: I would've canceled the Press Corps. There's no need for one.

 

He will when a written code of conduct is signed by anyone wishing to be on the Whitehouse press corp.