Press Pass Comes With Due Process Rights?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-11-16 15:25 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 129 references Ignore this thread
Press Pass Comes With Due Process Rights?
[Comments enabled]

This is complete and utter crap.

A federal judge ruled in favor of CNN on Friday, allowing the network’s star reporter Jim Acosta to temporarily regain access to his White House press credential.

"I will grant the application for the temporary restraining order. I order the government reinstate the pass," U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled from Washington.

Kelly – who rescheduled Thursday’s planned hearing for Friday morning – heard lengthy oral arguments earlier in the week about the cable news network’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The administration had suspended Acosta's "hard pass," which provided expedited access to the White House grounds.

Total and complete garbage.

Let's start with the first part of this -- Due Process -- because it begins and ends there.

Since when does a discretionary "hard pass" come with a Due Process right?

Remember, the Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What was he deprived of that fell into the category of life, liberty or property?

He was not deprived of life.

He was not deprived of property.

He was not deprived of liberty as nobody has a right to enter into the White House grounds (go ahead and try it sometime without invitation -- prepare to be immediately arrested or even shot!)

The 5th Amendment does not mean that a privilege extended to someone comes with a due process right that now attaches before said privilege is revoked.  That's the salient difference between rights and privileges; one attaches to you as a consequence of being human; the other is discretionary and thus can be withdrawn.

Conflating these two is how we have permitted all sorts of crap -- such as "driver licenses" for non-commercial use of the roads -- to take place.  You have a liberty right to use public roads to transport your person and personal effects for non-commercial purposes and in fact the courts have ruled that you have a right to travel on same using the means customary to the present day.  Yes, there really is a ruling that says that -- which means "driver licenses" are unconstitutional.  So are mandatory insurance laws as does demanding you accept financial responsibility for the unlimited in price decisions of others on those same roads.  In other words my decision to spend $1 million on an exotic car becomes your potential liability if there is an accident.  That's insane; I had no voice or vote in your decision to place a million dollars of your property "at risk" in public and the financial responsibility for that decision should be yours, attaching with the power to make the decision!

On the other hand and in the instant case you have no right to be present in the various halls of government except by invitation of the office-holder thereof.  Try to claim a right to sit in the office of a Senator or Representative and see how that works out for you. If the officeholders set forward some means of public access (e.g. the Gallery in the House and Senate) then all well and good but note that all who refuse to follow the rules -- you may observe in those Galleries but may not demonstrate in any way, whether verbally or via waving of signs and other items.  You can be and will be immediately removed by armed police officers if you in any way attempt to disrupt the proceedings.

Thus is the case here.  This issue does not turn on whether Acosta legally committed assault.

It turns on his refusal to follow a legitimate request from a White House staffer to surrender the microphone that did not belong to him -- that microphone was White House property.  Possession of same once you have been told to surrender it is theft by conversion -- for openers.  It is not only a violation of reasonable and customary decorum it is a criminal offense, albeit given the likely value of said microphone a misdemeanor (theft by conversion.)

This "judge" is nothing of the sort and it matters not who appointed him.

No judge has the power to contravene the Constitution nor to invent language that is not present no matter how grave -- or trivial -- the subject matter.

View with responses (opens new window)