If you don't believe Madison [who was there, and it's been in all the papers] in support of your position, cite me an example in the Federal case law where The Preamble is used.
Oh, wait, you can't. Because the Supreme Court has never held such a position.
As a matter of fact, it has explicitly REPUDIATED the Preamble as part of the instrument:
Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, 1905:
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has NEVER been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.
Read it, AND WEEP.
The Preamble is NOT part of the instrument. None of the founders ever believed it was, and neither does the case law support the contention.
Well golly, they should have left it out of the document they sent to the states for ratification then, don't you think?
As to your 1905 court opinion, the court has a long history of disregarding whatever part of the Constitution that it doesn’t find useful, or that stands in their way. Nothing new about that.
"The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
"The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the People of the United States." - Justice Story, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
The preamble is clearly a part of the Constitution.
Should you dispute this as you insist on doing I offer you this challenge.
Locate a copy of the Constitution that does not contain the preamble. In that fashion, your misguided position may have some have merit. Please do not address me until you're able to respond to my challenge.