Republican strategist Peter Van Voorhis slammed Democratic consultant Mustafa Tameez on Fox and Friends First this morning, telling him that, “if you haven’t stood for Constitutional principles at all in your politics, why are you coming on here and talking about the Constitution?”
The segment discussed a recent federal court ruling, where Judge Haywood Gilliam, who donated more than $20,000 to President Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, ruled against the Trump administration’s plans to construct a border fence in Arizona and Texas.
Van Voorhis argued that “When these are supposedly clear cut Constitutional issues as 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.”
Tameez commented that this was not a way for Democrats to defeat the border wall. “This is the Presidency,” said Tameez, “not the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, and we all have to live under the Constitution, and President Trump’s going to need to learn that. That’s the Constitutional argument, it’s not a Democratic argument.”
Van Voorhis clapped back, telling Tameez, “The Left likes to selectively adopt the term Constitutional argument. 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?