On Fox News this morning, Republican commentator Peter Van Voorhis argued that Democrats cannot justify using the term ‘constitutional principles’ to fight against border security because they don’t stand for those principles in their politics.
“The Left likes to selectively adopt the term Constitutional argument,” Van Voorhis said. “You can cry Constitutional foul all you want, but if you haven’t stood for constitutional principles at all in your politics, why are you coming on here and talking about the Constitution?”
“This is the Presidency, not the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” said Democratic former D.H.S. official Mustafa Tameez, in response to federal judge Haywood Gilliam’s Friday ruling that sections of the Trump administration’s wall in Arizona and Texas were unconstitutional.
Gilliam donated over $20,000 to Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign, becoming the third Obama-appointed federal judge this week who ruled against the Trump administration. All three judges donated to Obama’s campaign before they were appointed.
Tameez told Van Voorhis and host Heather Childers that Democrats represented the Constitutional argument in their fight to block sections of the border wall from being built.
“We all have to live under the Constitution and President Trump’s going to need to learn that,” Tameez stated. “That’s the Constitutional argument, it’s not a Democratic argument.”
Van Voorhis added, “When these are supposedly clear cut Constitutional issues like this Judge said, why are these Democrats filing cases in places like Oakland, like New York, like Washington D.C.? It’s not by accident, it’s because they have no agenda in 2020 and they have to do everything they can to shut down the President, and this is what they’re going to do.”