Please read what's on that link again. It makes it very clear that the Preamble is very important in determining what the Law is. It cites several cases where the Preamble is central in determining how the Constitution should be interpreted. In the very rulings, it is given the force of law.
Story's remarks make it clear that (outside of Article 1, Section 8) that the Preamble does grant the Congress power to provide for the national defense. "But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted" Why do you insist on minimizing the Preamble? H. -----Original Message----- From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:59 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Preamble of the Constitution At 11:40 AM 10/2/01 -0500, you wrote: > If so, why do you ignore >Article 1, Section 8? You keep talking about the Preamble, but never >Article 1, Section 8. Why? Because my entire statement was that the Preamble has no force of law, hence using it as argument had no legal basis. I never said the constitution did not provide for the defense, simply that you cannot base in on the Preamble. EOT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
