Doesn't mean preambles are enforceable. Never have been. God help us if they ever do become enforceable.
It certainly has more constitutional weight than emanating penumbras.
They don't.
Bottom line: both penumbras and preambles are unenforceable. Keyes should stick to what he actually knows about.
Care to elaborate?
The question before the court was whether abortion is constitutional. Obviously, when asking that question, the preamble is a guide. Yet the court sided with "emanating penumbras" above the preamble. That is indefensible.
Or do we consider that which is actually written in the Constitution, the preamble, to be unconstitutional? For, as Keyes points out, the preamble contradicts abortion, and makes it clear that the Constitution is meant to protect the life of our posterity--a fact you have not disputed.
You said: Bottom line: both penumbras and preambles are unenforceable. Keyes should stick to what he actually knows about.
***
You are correct, at least technically. However, preamble are relevant to the meaning and intention of the provisions that follow, not unlike legislative history. The preamble is not law, but it DOES suggest how the following language ought to be interpreted. I don't know if the analysis goes as far as Keyes suggests, it is certainly NOT appropriate to ignore the introductory language or any statute, and certainly not the constitution.