[xzins]

In that the Preamble does not spell out a "process" that must be followed, you have a point. However, in that the preamble establishes the purpose, direction, and organization of a Constitution, then you are wrong.

One cannot uphold an interpretation of the Constitution that is contradicted by the preamble.

Nonetheless, the grammar remains.

You may say it isn't binding, but that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether those words were correctly translated by Moore. They are.

The preamble clearly recognizes "Almighty God" as the authority to which they appeal for guidance.

[Poohbah]

In that the Preamble does not spell out a "process" that must be followed, you have a point. However, in that the preamble establishes the purpose, direction, and organization of a Constitution, then you are wrong.

Sorry, the preamble of ANY legal document has zero legal value. This dates back to English common law.

One cannot uphold an interpretation of the Constitution that is contradicted by the preamble.

Except that the preamble is unenforceably vague, which is endemic to preambles and why they aren't enforceable.

Nonetheless, the grammar remains.

You may say it isn't binding, but that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether those words were correctly translated by Moore. They are.

Actually, they aren't.

The preamble clearly recognizes "Almighty God" as the authority to which they appeal for guidance.

That does not equal a MANDATE stating that Moore MUST acknowledge God in his courthouse, as you claim.