If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.

the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the "whole nation".

The "whole nation" is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the "whole nation" is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the "whole nation" to be synonymous with the Militia.

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was "properly armed and equipped" that didn't require annual assembly?

"Properly" being the functional term here. "Armed and equipped" is not the same as "Properly armed and equipped".

If you don't like being held to pedantry, don't make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months ago

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

10USC246 is substantially less than 100%, yes.

But, "male" can be dropped from that definition tomorrow. Which means that although females didn't meet the legislative definition, they did meet the constitutional definition yesterday. They had to, or Congress couldn't add them to its narrower definition.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

Non sequitur.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning.

That argument devolves into absurdity. You can make the same argument for each and every word in the constitution. By prohibiting any sort of context by which to derive the meaning of language, not a single word in the constitution has any meaning whatsoever.

It is only through contemporary context that the meaning of a word can be derived, and there is no body of work closer than the Federalist papers by which to gain such context.

Properly" being the functional term here. "Armed and equipped" is not the same as "Properly armed and equipped".

You shouldn't have conceded the rest of that and focused on "properly", because I can accept that condition. I fully agree, "properly" is the functional term.

Article I Section 8 clause 18 empowers Congress "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

Congress determines the "proper" way to arm and equip the militia, and this is the method they have chosen.