William Eugene's Comments

By the way, the name is Rawles. I read fairly well. Typing is another matter. Farmer's hands, you know...not so dexterous.

William Eugene,

I tried to post on PH's Constitution page, and my contribution was deleted. I wrote to him about that on his profile page, and THAT was deleted. I copied a passage from a book - a letter of recommendation given to Noah Webster - and he deleted that, too. From the tenor of your comment to PH, it seems that you've had some trouble being heard by him, too. Have you ever wondered how much someone can learn who only wants to teach?

For example, I'm typing this note on PH's profile page. Let's see how quickly he deletes it.

PH bills himself as a philosopher. That's good, because I'd be interested in his account of Jeremy Bentham's contribution to Nick Rescher's, "Distributive Justice," Rowles's, "A Theory of Justice," and how these all tie together with, "The Republic". I'd also be interested if he can offer a critique of affirmative rights, dealt with at length in Beth Singer's, "Operative Rights," which I was pleased to have her ask me to proof read for her when I was still a sophomore at Brooklyn College. These are all very much "on point," insofar as they underpin the argument for an effective, "general welfare," clause - which, by the way, is a etymological impossibility.

"O.E. wel faran "condition of being or doing well," from wel (see well (adv.)) + faran "get along" (see fare (v.)). Cf. O.N. velferð. Meaning "social concern for the well-being of children, the unemployed, etc." is first attested 1904" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=welfare)

"[F]irst attested in 1904." I believe that was somewhat after the Constitution was written. There's no need for further argument: "...for the general welfare..." simply means, "to get along well [together]".

Nevertheless, without a notion of affirmative rights legally obliging citizens to each other, rather than to the State exclusive of the people under its jurisdiction, the notion of welfare involving government concern for the unemployed, children, etc., could not be defended, and the philosophical works I've mentioned treat just this issue.

Let's see if PH has the teeth for it, and if he's got the courage to have someone with some tincture of philosophical letters under his hat critique him.

Thanks for the quote page link William.

William, please restrain yourself in your posts.  I am sure you do not mean to come across as a know-it-all.  But I keep getting the impressing that you are primarily interested in showing off how much you have read. Please exercise restraint. Learn first, speak second.

Please feel free to direct people to this Constitution Study Group  - invite them to join - and to my own website.  People can print out whatever they want.  But I prefer that people read my papers on line if they can b/c my hyperlinks take them to the sources whom I quote.

You might also point out to them the 2 videos on my web site re my speech on the source of our Rights.  That is the fundamental issue, and the failure to understand it has lead us to ruin.

Please feel free to ask questions, but not to post personal opinions.  Our personal  opinions about the Constitution or legal issues are irrelevant. It matters not what any of us [including me]  think - but, "what do the Federalist Papers say?"

Thank you for asking about posting "information":  That's just the point.  You are not ready to teach Our Constitution or to post "information".  My purpose in forming this Study Group is to show students how to determine the original intent of Our Constitution using The Federalist Papers to ascertain that original intent.  Not secondary sources.

And this is not an opinion forum, or a forum for people to show how smart they are.

So, please read what is already posted in the discussions and on the wall.  Look at The Federalist Papers. They are the Authority recognized here. 

You are not the first person to join this Study Group and immediately start posting mountains of stuff which ignores the whole purpose of the Group! 

Remember:  The issue is:  What do The Federalist Papers say?  Not, what do I think?  Not, what do you think?  See?

OK, William:  You are the new guy who just joined and is going to teach all us rubes a thing or two about the Constitution and monetary policy, right?

Nope.  I ask people to READ first, spout off second.  Do not be a purveyor of misinformation.  Learn first, teach second.