In post #57, I stated: “Where’s the answer to the proposition that a preamble cannot negate an operative provision of law? You didn’t answer that one, did you?”
In post #71, you stated: “Yes, I did.”
Here’s my response: NO, you didn’t. Let’s examine what you stated in your original post, #40:
“First of all, where’s the moron who would seriously contend that religion, morality, or knowledge were unnecessary for good government?
Idiotic supposition with a lamebrain conclusion.”
Calling something an “idiotic supposition” and claiming that it was a “lamebrain conclusion” are, clearly, your opinion (to which you are entitled). But those assertions of your opinion DO NOT demonstrate, either logically or legally, a response to the question of “Where’s the answer to the proposition that a preamble cannot negate an operative provision of law?”
So, what’s the logical and/or legal response to my question?
I further explained it in my post #174.
"The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens. It's a right protected for a certain group of individuals for a certain purpose. Hence, the preamble -- which doesn't limit the right, merely explains it."
Why can't you read like everyone else? Why do I have to personalize all my responses to you?