You say in your post:
“we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States.”
Then why do not the meaning of the words at the time they were written mean anything to you. That is when they were “enacted”. Leo’s argument addresses the orginal meaning of the words legally when they were written.
You are trying to claim that these words were not legally defined when they were at that time.
No, Leo addresses what he claims were the original meaning of the words. His opinion is not supported by any law or any words in the Constitution itself, and is contradicted by Supreme Court decisions. So I'll go with federal law and the Supreme Court over Leo's opinion.