The first paragraph indicates, beyond doubt, that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" it introduces apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. There's your context.
I quote the part of the Preamble that's relevant to the discussion, and you call it nitpicking.
You made the erroneous claim:
The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.
I read good, and neither the preambles context, nor it's actual words, make your conclusion in any way 'obvious'.
In fact, that preamble states clearly:
-- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
-- A Constitution that specifically says in Art VI it is the "Law of the Land". -- The "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
In context, your position is made ludicrous.
The first paragraph indicates, beyond doubt, that the "declaratory and restrictive clauses" it introduces apply only to the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. There's your context.
Inquest, -- with every post you show off your idiotic habit of seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring or dismissing whatever facts you find inconvenient.