Replying to a message of Dave Drum to Dan Ceppa:

 DD> -=> Dan Ceppa wrote to Bob Ackley <=-

 DC>>> Yes, laws, laws that can be changed.  It's a defense of the Unitary
 DC>>> President Powers that the neocons were pushing.

 BA>> Perhaps.  I doubt that Scalia would swallow that line, though.  The
 BA>> fact that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit something
 BA>> does not automatically mean that one has a Constitutional right to
 BA>> do it.  The Constitution says nothing about murder, for instance.

 DC>> Which is what I've been getting at.  If they can't find a reason in
 DC>> the Constituion that prohibits murder, why bother with the
 DC>> Constitution at all?

 DD> Have your read the Constitution? Did/do you understand what it says?
 DD> Or were you out for a short beer and a cigarette during that part of
 DD> your high school civics class?

 DD> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
 DD> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
 DD> the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
 DD> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
 DD> establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 DD> And if you do not subscribe to and practice that philosophy then I
 DD> submit that you are the sort of person who goes through a revolving
 DD> door on another's push. Just another sheep.

Note that the preamble to a document - such as what you quoted above -
is without legal force or effect.  It is merely a statement of what the
(following) document is supposed to accomplish.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+