[Non-Sequitur]

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.

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.

[TheBigIf]

“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. “

So at least no you admit that he is making a claim. I thought before it was mere ‘blather’.

There are no supreme court decisions that contradict Leo’s way of defining the orginal definition of the term.

Go with whatever you want to but your still wrong. As I said before, in your description the words had no orginal definition at all.