In the Jacobson case, the Court was relying on caselaw drift
stemming from a legendary 1833 book of commentary on the Constitution by a Justice of the Supreme Court
who dextrously claimed the Preamble is merely introductory to a body that confers powers
(for citation see For the Press).
According to this commentary the Preamble may only be used in court as a sort of expert witness
"to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution”.
Courts could only refer to the Preamble to resolve questions about the ‘real’ Constitution;
it didn’t do anything.
This error creates a category of "Semi-Constitution" that the Constitution doesn't claim, create or define.
The Preamble consists entirely of an enacting statement (see Preamble vs Purview).
To negate this a different and lesser legal category
would have to be plainly and expressly created for it in the text.
but they didn't.
The name 'the Preamble' is not in the Constitution.
like 'The Constitution of the United States'
in a space between the Preamble and Article I
but they didn't do this either.
including itself in it
(not "aConstitution" or "the Constitution"
or "the following Constitution"),
exactly as the Articles do
when they refer to the whole document.
less legally binding than other text.
the people retain the inalienable right and power
to ordain and establish government
even if this one fails us,
and its purposes are continuous.
Because the Constitution
a 'less-legally-binding' category
for the text of the Preamble
it has the same force of law
as the rest of the text.
The Commentary's assertion is false.
Page 1, The Constitution of the United States of America