On Sep 6, 3:16*pm, Jack wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:38*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...

Just trying to help you understand, what must be for you, a difficult
sentence. *Oh, and the Founders didn't write that sentence... some
lawyer did. *Is that the source of your confusion? *There's that
mental heavy lifting thing again.

Swing and a miss.

What is it about "not a source of power for any department of the
Federal Government" do you not understand?

Are you a revisionist constitutionalist? I doubt it.

Can you answer a direct question? *Apparently not.

Air ball...

Can you see how silly your whole argument is?

Certain can... just like your ignorance of the facts in this case...

I guess the governor of Penn at the Constitutional Congress in 1787 doesn't
count as a Founding Father. Keep swinging, you'll hit something eventually.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Are you thinking the sentence: "Although the preamble is not a source
of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme
Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and
purpose of the Constitution." was written by a founding father, Gouv
Morris? *You seem to be indicating that. *Want to share your source?

Besides, every source is unanimous in one thing... that the preamble
DOES NOT grant any powers to the government, that it only serves to
introduce the Constitution. *If you're still trying to maintain that
the preamble itself, or the annotation from Findlaw above, grants
power to the president and congress to enact some legislation, you're
just... wrong.

Heh, heh... crickets. I'm not surprised.