Since liberty by definition, is synonymous with "freedom", let's take a look at the definitions of both in synonym form:
"—Synonyms
1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement."
[FONT="]undue [ʌnˈdjuː][/FONT]
[FONT="]adj[/FONT]
[FONT="]1.[/FONT][FONT="] excessive or unwarranted[/FONT]
[FONT="]2.[/FONT][FONT="] unjust, improper, or illegal[/FONT]
[FONT="]3.[/FONT][FONT="] (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) (of a debt, bond, etc.) not yet payable[/FONT]
[FONT="]Usage: The use of
unduein sentences such as
there is no cause for undue alarm is redundant and should be avoided[/FONT]
[FONT="]op·por·tu·ni·ty[/FONT][FONT="]/ˌäpərˈt
o[/FONT][FONT="]͞[/FONT][FONT="]onitē/[/FONT][FONT="]Noun[/FONT]
[FONT="]1. A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something[/FONT][FONT="].[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. A chance for employment or promotion[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yes, they are attached. But how ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ as synonymous ‘things’ are not related to any sort of ‘unfettered’ symbolic representation that the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are asserted by you to fundamentally, and/or by definition to be.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“…an absence of restrictions” would have made sense, but they are defined as, in application, and to represent “…an absence of
undue restriction”, and also a symbol of an “opportunity given” are what ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ under your definition takes their symbolic form, and application[/FONT]
[FONT="]*If my response is to thick, let me know, and I will elaborate*[/FONT]
[FONT="]Basically what I am stating is that the fundamental nature (yes, I will assert that the symbolic representation of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are fundamental in their attribution of a particular definition), purpose, and application of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are not unfettered; even by the definition that you have provided.[/FONT]
Ah. So "ones rights" are unequivocally attached to both terms, "freedom", and "liberty".
Jumping the gun a bit? Yes, ‘rights’ are attached to the terms. But the application of ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ are contingent on ‘undue restriction’; and are also referred to as ‘opportunity given’. I will concede the latter as an ‘opportunity given’ is likely inherent in the ‘spirit’ of the intent of the terms ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’.
Furthermore, a complete absence of undue restriction is necessary to even meet the criteria for being called "Free" or "Liberty".
Examples of this "undue" activity in our current government is essentially everywhere in our present society, particularly when weighed against the fundamentals of liberty, and the the proposed adherence to that which is most free, as commented on numerous times by the framers themselves.
LOL, you knew I would focus on the definition, and its inclusion of ‘undue’. Are we having a telepathic connection?
Your asserting that the “complete absence” of ‘undue restriction’ is necessary to meet said criteria. The problem is that the word “complete” has meaning. The definition refers to the two terms as having “…an absence.” Not, “complete.”
That is the beauty of our Constitution and its inception. "An Authority" refers to anybody, at any time, who places upon themselves the power to deprive you of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, it applies to the same individuals/governments, who violate our enumerated constitutional rights, without the empowerment to do so.
This statement is true, but is not applicable to our current form of seating our Representatives. Representatives are voted in, the power given to Representatives is not taken, but given through the vote.
What we have in modern times is a skirting of the purpose for Constitutional convention.
If you are going to assert that the Constitution has a ‘purpose’, then explain, please. Are ‘purpose’, and ‘intent’ synonymous?
Hence full on firearms bans that have been allowed in places like Chicago, and D.C., wherein they could not pass constitutional muster on their face.
Yes, ‘full on’ firearms bans are unconstitutional.
Be advised that "authority" does not limit itself to ones government.
Any oppression that subverts, or violates Constitutionally enumerated rights, or the three inalienable rights as declared by the Declaration of Independence.
But is typically levied from some government entity. I am trying to think of an authority that oppresses, but does not come from a government entity.
Unalienable Rights are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. So we have a Natural ‘right’ to:
We do not have the Natural Right to “Happiness,” but rather, the ‘pursuit’ of Happiness. At the core of all of this, fundamentally, these ‘rights’ are deemed a Natural Right.
Be careful. I stated oppression of inalienable, and otherwise enumerated rights, which by definition are bound to the English nouns, "Liberty" and "Freedom".
Furthermore, it most certainly applies to those not specifically enumerated, but not specified as being under federal jurisdiction as well. This is covered by the 9th Amendment.
Hence why homosexuality, not being controlled by government by constitutional binding, nor expressly enumerated as inalienable, is absolutely protected under the 9th Amendment.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
What the Founding Fathers are stating here is that there are “certain” ‘rights’ which are enumerated shall not be mistaken as ‘rights’ that can be used to undermine other ‘rights’ which are within the Constitution.
So, the ‘right’ of freedom of Religion, cannot be used to argue that because the ‘belief’ of the Religion is that homosexuals should not have ‘rights’ be applied via the Constitution to deny the homosexual his/her ‘rights’ under the Constitution.
Hey…”Religion” is an authority. I knew I would have something come to mind!
Incorrect.
They are only violating Liberty and Freedom, if said laws or regulations are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are also guilty of violating the Constitution, and liberty as well as freedom, by self-granting of powers not expressly given them via the Constitution.
Agreed. What I was stating is that they are arguing against ‘Liberty/Freedom’ if the premise is that ‘Liberty/Freedom’ are unfettered.
If they are ‘self-granting’ powers, yes. Unless the ‘self-granting’ is done via the Constitution’s ‘rules’ of how the process of legislation is either to take place, or is not allowed.
You're not really asking a question here, and to be honest, it is hard to understand precisely what you are saying because of formatting, and misspelling.
Liberty, like any other English word, does have a base definition. Because our language is so descriptive, we have developed an abundance of nouns and adjectives to better describe to a finite point, our conveyed message.
You attempt to state that "Liberty" has an embedded "notion" by definition. A "notion" implies that it is a free-form concept.
Unfortunately, this is disingenuous.
By inserting "notion" in sentence referring to a specific word, with a specific definition, you are in fact trying to skew, or alter the word/definition.
You are attempting to take the edges of the hard lines, and smear them around the page a bit.
This is not acceptable when dealing with legal concepts, or our nations foundational backbone.
Take the definition of the word at complete, factual, face value.
Realize that any deviation from it, probably falls under the definition of another word.
Word's like "Regulation", or "Compliance".
“Oh, but it can. If your understanding is that 'Liberty' is a term which symbolizes a notion that by the application of the notion is nothing more than a construct. As to whether 'Liberty' holds some fundamental truth to it as a notion. I have been thinking about this. If 'Liberty' is a fundamental truth, then all people would agree that 'Liberty' as a notion, and in application would be the same; because it is fundamental truth, right?”
‘Notion’ is synonymous with ‘concept’ as a premise, and/or assertion. That is what all of these symbolic terms are, such as, ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’. First there is a concept that is formulated, and structured based on a premise, or an assertion. Then there is a symbolic representation of the concept that takes the form of a term, such as ‘Liberty’.
Ah, a question containing a lie, in an attempt to get an omission. Don't try to play word games with me Beretta.
Muah? LOL
#1. Liberty is not a "Notion". "Liberty" does in fact have a hard definition.
I agree, ‘Liberty’ is not a ‘notion’. ‘Liberty’ is a symbol of a notion.
#2. It is not a "fundamental truth" that Liberty is a "notion".
You are right. A premise that the particulars of a ‘notion’ are a ‘fundamental truth’ is an assertion that the ‘notion’ is a ‘fundamental truth’.
#3. Deviation from the term "Liberty", or "Freedom", outright changes the definition of what you are defining.
I am not deviating from the term ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’. What I am doing is bringing to light that the premise, or assertion of the notion that is attributed the symbols ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ might not be absolute.
Such a definition would be "regulation", since the activity is no longer "Free" or within the scope of "liberty", but is specifically controlled in any way, shape, or form.
So, you are asserting that ‘Liberty’, and ‘Freedom’ by definition are absolutely unfettered?
