Replies

"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

That's nothing more than the definition of originalism, and makes it no more important than any other historical context. You can read the same sentiments in Bork's books. I don't disagree with them, but this isn't a precedent, just Story's opinion [not even obiter dicta, since it isn't part of any legal finding.] It's not part of the case law, and it's certainly not part of the instrument.

The quote from Martin is laughable. It's nothing more than an historical note -- which, by the way -- Story also used in supporting his claim for jurisdiction.

So, is the historical context also part of the Constitution? By your "argument" it would appear so. Luckily, Story didn't rely on originalist arguments entirely to establish his point, but actually cited chapter and verse where in the Constitution the Supreme court was granted such authority by The People via the Convention and the States who ratified it.

Two strikes. I'll give you one more swing, and then you're out.

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.

For something that isn't part of the instrument the preamble certainly got quoted a lot, both in case law and in studies of the Constitution itself.