Your argument is that 'Liberty' has only one meaning. I will accept that. Except, I would like to know what constitutes a thing as an 'oppressive restriction'? Is it all 'restriction'? And by that, all restriction is then oppressive?
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."
Ah. So "ones rights" are unequivocally attached to both terms, "freedom", and "liberty".
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.
"By authority," or "by an Authority?" The Authority of whom? Government?
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.
What we have in modern times is a skirting of the purpose for Constitutional convention.
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.
Ah, so the absolute definition of "Liberty" is to be free from oppressive restrictions "imposed by authority" on ones way of life.
Correct.
Be advised that "authority" does not limit itself to ones government.
It depends on what an 'oppressive restriction' is deemed to be.
Any oppression that subverts, or violates Constitutionally enumerated rights, or the three inalienable rights as declared by the Declaration of Independence.
If 'oppressive restriction' is ALL 'restrictions' then yes.
If 'oppressive restriction' is SOME 'restriction' then of course it would not be, based on your assertion (?) that 'Liberty' is some thing specific, and absent ALL form of restriction.
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.
I agree with your definition of 'regulate'.
If an individual, or group of individual (Representatives) is creating a rule of Law, then they are in effect during the process arguing against 'Liberty', and attempting to prohibit the exercise of a 'Freedom'? If the terms of your 'Liberty' are unfettered, then yes.
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.
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?
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".
How do you explain a fundamental truth that a notion termed 'Liberty' has so many variations by definition by degrees, as well as the application of 'Liberty'?
Ah, a question containing a lie, in an attempt to get an omission. Don't try to play word games with me Beretta.
#1. Liberty is not a "Notion". "Liberty" does in fact have a hard definition.
#2. It is not a "fundamental truth" that Liberty is a "notion".
#3. Deviation from the term "Liberty", or "Freedom", outright changes the definition of what you are defining.
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.