[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.

[xzins]

See #190. the writer is a lawyer. He disagrees and says that that no ruling can conflict with the preamble SINCE it states the purpose of the document.

As such, it is the mission statement of the document.

[xzins]

"We the people...invoking..." is present progressive.

Judge Moore's point is correct. An oath to uphold that constitution requires one to enter into that PURPOSE spelled out in the preamble. To be honest, an atheist judge simply cannot enter into his oath about that constitution with honesty. He cannot participate in "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God."