David Cryan commented on 2009-04-30 00:22:32 ~ Well IOT cuda is complaining about the trade embargo, swine is spreeding, and over 2000 undocumented cases in mexico ami that far fromth etruth

Editor says, what if the 2009 swine flu outbreak became a global pandemic?

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

David Cryan commented on 2009-04-28 00:12:59 ~ I really liked the way this came out. I have a few days of this logged to keep the timeline going with other current events.

Eric Oppen commented on 2009-04-28 01:53:22 ~ This might yet come under "current events" or "things to come." How about a scenario where the flu scare of the 1970s turned out to be real---and worse, even than the Spanish Flu of 1918?

Eric Lipps commented on 2009-04-28 15:57:35 ~ I've been playing with an idea in which the "walking sickness" from the 1936 movie Things to Come" was real, a mutation of the 1918 swine flu.

Chris Oakley commented on 2009-04-30 16:50:09 ~ Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Cryan.

Comment from Mark Warner on Facebook: Who cares? It's relatively mild. It has a kill rate similar to seasonal flu. So, it goes everywhere. Seasonal flu goes everywhere. Big deal. Now, if a flu with a relatively high mortality rate (like the Bird Flu that still pops up in Asia from time to time) became a global pandemic, then you can get alarmed and I'd care.

Comment from Mary Kane on Facebook: The local hospitals are banning visits from anyone under 18, since they are the most likely to get it and can be infectious before symptoms show up. We're already at mid-winter flu levels.

Comment from Jeffrey Michael Kellen on Facebook: It IS very likely...:o

Comment from Mystik Waboose on Facebook: You have read The Last Centurion by John Ringo, no?

Comment from John Tackett on Facebook: Not a What-if, but a when.. Only a matter of time.

Comment from Marko Prpic on Facebook: These are all just stories....how many people die from regular flu and nobody raises that much dust....this is just an attempt to turn around Easy Money from people in panic....and ultimately I think that more people died from the poison as it gave them than from the swine flu:S

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-07-30 05:33:20 ~

Editor says, what if the Federal Government overruled the State of Arizona's new immigration law? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Bruce Johnson commented on 2010-07-29 18:43:40 ~ Not even close. Fixed - thanks. Ed It is in a sense the polar opposite of the nullification crisis, since it amounts to the executive branch telling a state - "We refuse to actually enforce federal law. Therefore, you may not try to do so either!" More specifically: In the nullification crisis, South Carolina actually declared a federal LAW invalid or null (announcing that the state would refuse to support payment of federal tariffs it disagreed with). But ironically, in this instance, the Arizona law simply seeks to IMPLEMENT federal law, and is being told that, because the current administration's policy is NOT to enforce federal law, any state attempting to do so is interfering with federal prerogatives . That is, Arizona is acting against the executive branch's policy, but it is the executive NOT the state of Arizona that is acting to "nullify" federal law. The state, if interfering (or planing to), would be interfering with the administration NON-enforcement of the law. At the same time, consistent with its own policy but again contrary to federal law, the administration has taken no action against those (esp. "sanctuary cities") who have adopted explicit policies of PREVENTING the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Bruce Johnson commented on 2010-07-29 18:59:42 ~ Sorry, I didn't read the question at the very top. From that perspective, yes this IS an attempt at "federal nullification". But with some odd wists. The nullification here is ultimately by one branch - the executive - and it is not simply against a state law, but against the law passed by another branch of the federal government itself. In fact, the executive not actively enforcing a particular law is not so very unusual. It is, however, quite unusual (unprecedented? I'd like to see if we can find other examples), to move from the executive's ordinarily passive disregard for certain laws to taking action against states that actually DO try to follow the law.

Eric Oppen commented on 2010-07-29 19:04:52 ~ This would mean, at the very least, Arizona going against the Democrats for a long time. I've friends there, and one and all, they're very much in favor of the new law. Arizona's sick of illegal immigrants.

Jeff Provine commented on 2010-07-29 19:27:11 ~ Civil War 2: This Time It's Immigration. At least, a stand of states' rights would cause the pendulum to swing back from two centuries of increasing federalism.

Chris Oakley commented on 2010-07-30 02:26:30 ~ There may be a Civil War 2 anyway.... :(