I made it clear that it was MY definition using words in the Constitution and I stand by it.
If you want to play word games, what do you make of Article VI when it says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Is the Preamble a "thing in the Constitution" or is it not? Are the Signatories a "thing in the Constitution" or are they not
Furthermore, when the Preamble says "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," does that matter?
If the Preamble has no force of law, then on who's authority was the Constitution based? Are you going to tell me that the Signatories have no force of law too?
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.When taking the Preamble and Signatories together, we get the brackets around the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.When the Constitution speaks of the several States and of the People, it is speaking of We the People in the Preamble and the several States that the Signatories represent. Otherwise, we are left with ambiguous definitions of "people" and "states" that you seem to prefer, because the people who wrote the Constitution, signed their names to it, and stated their purpose for it are just extraneous paragraphs to you.Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
The Constitution has no validity without an attestation of who it represents and who signed off on it. They are all "things in the Constitution." It is one interwoven tapestry; you cannot keep the parts you like and pull apart the things you don't or the whole tapestry falls apart.
It doesn't matter if the Committee on Style added it, the signatories signed it with the Preamble present. They are all "things in the Constitution" and the entire Constitution, Preamble and Signatories, stand as one historic, civilization-changing document.
-PJ
That portion of Article VI merely says that the Constitution, all US laws made in pursuance of it, and treaties made by the United States, are the “supreme law of the land”, and that the judges of every state are bound by it.
“Any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” simply means that anything in the Constitution or any state law that might give the impression that these (Constitution/US laws/treaties) are NOT the supreme law does not make it so.
Grammatically speaking, Article VI could have also been rendered thus, and the meaning would be unchanged:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, **in spite of** any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”
As such, the 14th Amendment, and all US laws made in pursuance of it, are part of “the supreme Law of the Land”...the Preamble of the Constitution (or your opinion of what it means, or what it should imply) notwithstanding.
I made it clear that it was MY definition using words in the Constitution and I stand by it.
You used the Preamble which has no standing as now, you Political moron. YOUR definition has no basis in law.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/preamble.html
The preamble is not technically a legal document, so the ideas contained within it are not enforceable in a court of law. But, it serves as a reminder of why the Constitution was written — to create laws around justice, defense, liberty, and prosperity for the United States.[...]
the Preamble was not the subject of any extensive debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, having been added to the Constitution as an apparent afterthought during the final drafting process.
[...]
In the years following the Constitution's enactment, the Supreme Court of the United States cited the Preamble in several important judicial decisions, but the legal weight of the Preamble was largely disclaimed. As Justice Joseph Story noted in his Commentaries, the Preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments.
The Supreme Court subsequently endorsed Justice Story's view of the Preamble, holding in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that, while the Constitution's introductory paragraph indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded by the Court as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government.
The Preamble exercises absolulely no force as law.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
The U.S. Constitution: PreambleThe preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
Pre.2 Historical Background on the Preamble[excerpts]
The initial draft of the Constitution’s Preamble was, however, fairly brief and did not specify the Constitution’s objectives. As released by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787, this draft stated: We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity. While this draft was passed unanimously by the delegates, the Preamble underwent significant changes after the draft Constitution was referred to the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787. Perhaps with the understanding that the inclusion of all thirteen of the states in the Preamble was more precatory than realistic, the Committee of Style, led by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, replaced the opening phrase of the Constitution with the now-familiar introduction We, the People of the United States. Moreover, the Preamble, as altered by Morris, listed six broad goals for the Constitution: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The record from the Philadelphia Convention is silent, however, as to why the Committee of Style altered the Preamble, and there is no evidence of any objection to the changes the Committee made to the final version of the Preamble.
[...]
Nonetheless, there is no historical evidence suggesting the Constitution’s Framers conceived of a Preamble with any substantive legal effect, such as granting power to the new government or conferring rights to those subject to the federal government. Instead, the founding generation appeared to view the Constitution’s prefatory text as generally providing the foundation for the text that followed.