[inquest]

The Preamble contains no commands of any kind. It requires nothing, it prohibits nothing. It's only an explanation of why the Constitution is being adopted. Further, it speaks only in the vaguest, most subjective terms, such that it essentially says nothing of legal significance. One should therefore be wary of using it even as an aid in construction of the Constitution's enumerated powers. But to cite it and it alone as a basis for a particular ruling, suggests either gross judicial incompetence, or a desperate attempt to find any excuse whatever for a preconceived ruling. The Chase court didn't appear to me to be incompetent, so I guess that narrows it down some.

[Non-Sequitur]

But to cite it and it alone as a basis for a particular ruling, suggests either gross judicial incompetence, or a desperate attempt to find any excuse whatever for a preconceived ruling.

Again, your opinion. There is nothing that indicates that the Preamble should be discarded in favor of the rest of the Constitution. Look at another example. Take away the Preamble and show me where the Constitution allows for an Air Force, Marine Corps, and a Coast Guard? It allows for support for an Army and a Navy and that's it. But due to the Preamble's requirement that we 'provide for the common defense' and suddenly the authority to maintain any kind of military branch is allowed.