I'm suggesting that nothing can supercede the Preamble's limitations of scope, unless the amendment specifically amends the Preamble, and that hasn't happened.
That is, indeed, a pleasant thought. Unfortunately, it flies in the face of the most basic principles of English Common Law, upon which the Constitution and all of our subsequent laws are based. In fact, in Common Law, where a legal document allows amendment, as does our Constitution, such amendments to that document supersede and replace in law any conflicting part of the original document, without exception, unless amending certain paragraphs is specifically forbidden in the original document. Such specific prohibition of the Preamble does not exist in the Constitution. It would be nice if such a specific prohibition had been written into the Constitution. But, that is not the case.
An amendment to the Constitution does in fact, supersede in law, any conflicting part of the Constitution, including the Preamble. Not only would any court challenges based on such a frivolous argument be denied without action, but such denial would likely involve a substantial amount of laughter by the ruling jurist and others in the courtroom at the time.