[Ancesthntr]

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.

Where's the "second of all?" 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? All that you did was sling some insults in the direction of the attorneys who wrote the brief (and who, by the way, were intellectually capable of getting a case heard by the Supreme Court, no mean feat in and of itself). No substantive answers from you, are there? I don't have to wonder why - I know...you can't answer that with a winning argument.

You might also take a look at Post #20, or more to the point, the brief itself. You might learn a thing or two. Or two hundred. Primary among which is that YOU ARE WRONG on this issue.

[robertpaulsen]

"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?"

Yes, I did.