[Osborn F Enready]

My static definition of Liberty for this situation:
autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence

My static definition of Anti-Liberty for this situation:
coercion: non-soverign

Both major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, have voted consistently, and between members, to support ANTI-liberty aspiring bills, and constitutional amendments.

I think both major parties want to disect, and remove "inalienable rights" from our individual ability, and the BOR in the Constitution clearly and definitively limits governments ability to do this.

Also, for clarification I want to define my use of the term "inalienable rights".

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are said to be absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. Several different sets of inalienable rights have been suggested by philosophers and politicians. Inalienable rights are defined as natural rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

The only party I see in politics right now that FULLY respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the National Libertarian Party. Compared to the Libertarian Party, both major parties are near-fascist in comparison of inalienable rights issues.

That is my opinion.