What does this have to do with the Constitution?? No one is censoring them or forbidding them from reporting. But being in the WH to report is a privilege, not a right. Try reading the Constitution. Show me where it says that the press has a right to be in the WH.

I'll give you a little education on the Constitution since you need it. It's not a document of positive liberties, a menu if you will, telling we the people what we're allowed to do or say. Therefore, "where in the Constitution does it give them the right to be in the WH" is as silly a question as "where in the 2nd amendment does it say you're allowed to own a taser." The Trump administration already opened the WH to reporters voluntarily. It is specifically a constitutional violation to revoke a press pass based on speech. Sherrill v. Knight (1977) The court held that while the government has a compelling interest in protecting the President, it cannot deny press passes arbitrarily or based on content/viewpoint. The First Amendment defines the press pass as a constitutionally protected interest once the doors are opened, and the Fifth Amendment prevents the President from revoking it without published rules, written evidence, and a fair hearing.

The Constitution stipulates that the government can't prevent a free press. He's not. Access to the White House is a "privilege ", not a right. He can deny any lying, communist, POS outlet a seat at the White House he wants to. They are free to broadcast their lies all day.

I'll give you a little education on the Constitution since you need it. It's not a document of positive liberties, a menu if you will, telling we the people what we're allowed to do or say. Yes, being in the WH is a privilege, and the WH voluntarily opened its doors to reporters already. It is specifically a constitutional violation to revoke a press pass based on speech. Also, government cannot revoke a privilege based on speech either. There's been numerous court cases on this matter, I'm happy to share them if you'd like to learn more. Sherrill v. Knight (1977). The court held that while the government has a compelling interest in protecting the President, it cannot deny press passes arbitrarily or based on content/viewpoint. The First Amendment defines the press pass as a constitutionally protected interest once the doors are opened, and the Fifth Amendment prevents the President from revoking it without published rules, written evidence, and a fair hearing.

Show me where it says they have full access to a building?

The fact that you are asking this question proves you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. As I have explained to other people who are supporting the president in this cut and dry case, the Constitution is not a document of positive liberties, a menu so to speak, of things that we the people are allowed to do. It is a document of negative liberties that tells the government what they are not allowed to do. The Constitution does not tell us we are allowed to own a handgun, so does that mean we are not allowed to own a handgun even with the second amendment? I thought the Second Amendment had to list the exact type of arms we are allowed to own. It is specifically a constitutional violation to revoke a press pass based on speech. Sherrill v. Knight (1977) The court held that while the government has a compelling interest in protecting the President, it cannot deny press passes arbitrarily or based on content/viewpoint. The First Amendment defines the press pass as a constitutionally protected interest once the doors are opened, and the Fifth Amendment prevents the President from revoking it without published rules, written evidence, and a fair hearing.

Lol..... Chris is a fucking moron that can't understand common sense. Typical leftist.

You spelled conservative wrong. Common sense is not the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't care about your feelings. It doesn't care about your interpretation of what is or isn't common sense. And amazing that you think it's OK for the government picking and choosing which voices are allowed. That's what you call common sense. Seems pretty authoritarian to me.