It is an objection to complying with the Constitution – an argument for not following the Constitution, because of political hostility to what the document says and does.

It is not an argument about the meaning of the Constitution's text, structure, history, logic, design, or purposes; nor is it an argument from constitutional precedent or practice.

When another objection came moments later, Tacopina asked for the basis. "It's argumentative, it's repetitive, and it's inappropriate," Kaplan said. Tacopina started to reply, but Kaplan cut him off.

J. P. Moreland, A Response to a Platonistic and to a Set-Theoretic Objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Religious Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 373-390 ...