I haven't had time to watch any of the vids yet, but one question: what the heck is John Stossel doing there?

.

Dee Doo Dee Doo Dee Doo . . .

Case Law:

The preamble "...has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted."

From caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/preamble/

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2
''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to
expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually
conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them.
For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for
the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the
powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the
common defence. 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?'' 3 

Footnotes

1 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).

2 E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).

3 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. Adler & W. Gorman, The American Testament (New York: 1975), 63-118.

==============================================

JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

[197 U.S. 11, 22]  

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.

~OGD~