On Supreme Court using the Preambles…

I was recently challenged in a statement I made that the Supreme Court should factor the values of the preambles into their decisions. The person asked me if I believed the judicial oath should be changed to uphold the Declaration as well as the Constitution (which I assume was sarcastic since it was followed by a laughing emoji). They also said that the judges swear to defend the constitution and asked if I thought that judges should be citing the preamble and if other sources should carry equal weight to the constitution. They went on to say that the Court cannot create “shadow amendments” without Congress and the ratification process (I guess they thought I might be implying that). Here was my response:

1. No I do not believe the Judicial Oath should be changed.

2. Note that the preamble to the Constitution is in the Constitution so they are swearing to uphold the preamble to the constitution as well as the rest of the document which include the amendments. As Erwin Chemerinsky writes about: constitutional theory and the Court neglecting the Preamble to the Constitution, “has been a mistake because the Preamble states the ideals for the Constitution and for the republic. It also is a mistake to ignore any words of the Constitution in interpreting the document…By ignoring the Preamble, we forget the idealistic vision that inspired the Constitution and what it was meant to achieve.” (book: "We the People, A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty-First Century" by Erwin Chemerinsky, Picador, November 2018, pages 56-57).

3. As to the Declaration of Independence preamble, the Supreme Court frequently uses other sources besides the constitution so they can certainly use the preamble to the Declaration too and the Declaration is far more relevant than most other sources. Take the Supreme Court majority ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)- the majority opinion goes on and on for pages about an English statute from 1328, a 1686 English case of Sir John Knight, and a 1716 English treatise, (you can read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf). If these are relevant for pages and pages of the most consequential gun rights decision since Heller in 2008, then yes, I believe the Declaration of Independence is relevant to the Courts decisions...in fact, much more relevant.

4. Although I am not an originalist, I believe it has some relevance and it is relevant here: "The originalist theory of interpretation of the Constitution states "that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law. (https://constitutioncenter.org/.../on-originalism-in...)." Surely the writers of the Constitution were influenced by the Declaration so it would be relevant to "the original public meaning."

5. I agree the Supreme Court should not "expand roles and rights without any action by Congress, skipping the ratification process"...but they use other sources all the time...all I am saying is I believe they should also try to adhere to the spirit of the preamble to the Declaration.