OK, then you have to toss Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution out.
Whoops, you can't.
It says what it says.
And what it says is unenforceable.
Since all constitutions must pass review, it is instructive that this one was not found in violation of the US Constitution.
Because the preamble is unenforceably vague. If you try to argue that it IS enforceable, and that it DOES impose a religious test for an office, at which point it violates Article VI, Section 3.
It tells us that the culture of interpreting the 1st Amendment was different in 1901.
No, it tells us that Judge Moore's reliance on the preamble as enforceable law to the point of overriding the US Constitution is defective.