Economic Rebellion in the United States

In February of 2003, the COVID virus mutated and became what is known as COVID-2. The mutation meant people could be exposed by those infected for the first time. COVID-2 was discovered to be highly contagious and those who suffered extreme symptoms brought about the reference of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, commonly referred to as SARS.

The outbreak lasted for 6 months and the media used many of the same words as they are today with COVID-19. If one looks for facts over the scary headlines and phrases used to cause panic, it is easy to discover the term SARS 2 is being used. The reason for calling it SARS 2 is COVID-19 and COVID-2 are from the same family of the COVID virus and those who develop severe symptoms are identical to SARS.

Science fiction writers, of which I am one, can make a virus do anything we wish with a virus. With the right prose, a talented writer can have someone believing something that is a scientific impossibility to be no longer a scientific impossibility. A mostly benign virus, like COVID, can be turned into a resurgence of the Spanish flu. Just because a science fiction writer can accomplish this task does not mean it is scientifically possible for this to happen.

When the news of SARS broke almost 20 years ago, the media caused a panic, but the governments did not follow suit. COVID was already known to be relatively harmless and very few people who contracted SARS would suffer severe effects. More people died from influenza, the flu, than from SARS. The misleading headlines and unethical use of wording in the press did not bring about governments encouraging the panic. SARS cost the global economy billions in US dollars, which was a minor bump in the road.

Viruses are predictable and we have had close two decades to study the impact of SARS. We know a virus from the same family will have a similar impact on human hosts as a previous virus had. The media and governments point to countries with aging populations to support their view, since older populations are at greater risk. Those countries not being pointed to shows what they do not want people to know.

South Korea has been doing large-scale testing to determine who has COVID-19. The results are as expected by those who pay attention to fact over fiction. 99% of the people who test positive are not showing any severe symptoms. Of the 1% who develops severe symptom, 75% need hospitalization and the remaining 25% of the 1% are admitted to the ICU. COVID has been known to be less deadly than influenza for a long time and the numbers will continue to prove the science.

If we already know SARS 2 is going to react to the human population as SARS did, a high volume of infection, but 1% developing severe symptoms, why are American states shutting down non-essential businesses? 23 states, almost half the country, have done this, which means they must have a reason for what can only be called reckless in polite conversation.

The governors keep pointing out infection as a means to justify closing businesses deemed non-essential. States of emergency have been declared and a lot of people are trying to figure out the reason. You cannot have a state of emergency without there being an actual state of emergency, which has nothing to do with projections. The reason comes down to something very important and very unconstitutional.

The Stafford Act was created to enable to president to act in cases of natural disasters. It removes a lot of red tape and brings an influx of money from the federal government. It was created with things such as earthquakes and tornadoes in mind. In order to receive aid under the Stafford Act, a state must submit documentation to FEMA to show a financial strain on the state and the inability to handle any given natural disaster at the state level, not a projected strain.

Just because a governor declares a state of emergency, does not make it a state of emergency. The governors who have done this and shut down businesses deemed non-essential, claim the projections of infection are enough to satisfy the requirements. Without a financial strain severe enough to bring about the lawful use of the Stafford Act, no state qualifies for anything.

Some states with older population averages, like Florida, will most likely qualify due to the high population of retirees who move to those states. Congress could pass an exemption for those states to temporarily wave the restrictions of the Stafford Act. Those are the states that will face financial strain and the resources can be targeted towards the retirement communities, such as The Villages, Florida.

We already know infection and severe reaction are two very different things, meaning 99% of people who get SARS 2 will not develop severe symptoms. This means the majority of American states will not qualify under the Stafford Act. Without enough severe reactions, there is no major strain on state resources.

The governors of the states who have declared an emergency without there being an actual emergency know the numbers will not support the claim. No president can lawfully do anything under the Stafford Act for any state not meeting the burden of proof. Instead of being responsible leaders and letting people know this is SARS 2 and the result will be the same as SARS, they choose to amplify the fear being spread by the media.

Since most states will not qualify, a lot of governors have used the fear to their advantage. By having people quarantine themselves out of fear they may get COVID-19 without telling them it’s from the same family as COVID-2 and the results of what will happen are already known, they have succeeded in people spending less in the local communities. If people are not spending as much within their state, it helps to show justification for the Stafford Act.

The 23 states who have enacted a ban on non-essential businesses have gone even further to guarantee the outcome. They are purposely tanking the state economies in a way that has never been done before. The politicians involved in the scheme believe they will have a quick turn around with a massive influx of federal dollars at their disposal, but projections are wrong, and states never recover quickly after taking a severe economic hit.

The United States Constitution has several clauses, one of which is called the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, paragraph 2 states in part that the United States Constitution, “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State…” To put it simply, the federal Constitution cannot be violated by any state for any reason.

The tenth Amendment reaffirms the Supremacy Clause. The first part of the Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…” This means there is no 10^th Amendment protection for states who violate the United States Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is referred to as the Commerce Clause. Included in the Commerce Clause is the inclusion of regulating commerce between the states. Whenever regulate is used in the United States Constitution, it is a reference to make regular, which in the case of interstate commerce means to ensure no state places an undue burden on interstate commerce.

Every governor who has acted in violation of the Commerce Clause is in a state of economic rebellion against the United States. Only economic strain directly caused by a natural disaster qualifies any state under the Stafford Act. No governor can purposely tank a state economy and legally qualify for anything. At that point, it is no longer a natural disaster, but a man-made one.

This rebellion against the United States must be dealt with quickly. Their greed will cost real lives. There are people who need treatment, but are postponing out of fear of getting a mostly harmless virus. How many people are going to die in their homes out of fear of leaving?

Anything can be justified by anyone, but that is far from being legal. Instead of federal aid, the governors must be met with legal action from the executive branch. The president must have the Attorney General of the United States respond through legal means, since any other action would be a violation of the law.

President Trump has an important decision to make. Either he can follow the law and end this rebellion before real lives are lost, or he can send money to the states in violation of the Stafford Act. One action is performing his duty as president, the other action is an impeachable offense and grounds for removal from office.