Author Topic: People Worthy of Admiration (Read 1741 times)

nw_hunter · « **on:** November 21, 2012, 06:56:55 PM »

In my opinion there are very few men or women today in politics and religion worth admiring.
Chuck Baldwin happens ( IMO) to be one of them. Another one, and Chuck Baldwin knows him as a friend and has the greatest admiration for him, is Ron Paul. Chuck thinks Paul is right up there with the men who gave us this country in patriotism, honesty, integrity and vision. I couldn't agree more.

This Thanksgiving, I have many things to thank God for, and one of them was giving us Ron Paul, A shining light, and hope in this dark and troublesome time in our history.

I hear people talk about him being a loser because he has ran twice for the Presidency and failed
both times at the primary level, and those of us that supported him are as well...losers! Nothing could be further from the truth.He has sparked a movement in this country that will not go away.I know some, perhaps many on the forum don't feel the same about Paul."Thats Fine" We all see things differently. I think as Americans we still have the right to disagree. I would just ask if you do disagree, do it with respect. I wish everyone on the Graybeard Outdoors forum a "Happy and safe Thanksgiving" Brad

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5275

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2012, 12:12:32 AM »

Don't know anything about Chuck Baldwin, but I like Ron Paul... he's a good man.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:44:07 AM »

Quote from: nw_hunter on November 21, 2012, 06:56:55 PM

This Thanksgiving, I have many things to thank God for, and one of them was giving us Ron Paul, A shining light, and hope in this dark and troublesome time in our history.

Yes, a shining light who sided with the democrats on earmarks, and who voted to take away parental rights over minor children, and who voted in favor of bankrupting firearms and ammo makers.
our kind of guy....

Virgil Goode on the other hand, voted against earmarks, and voted in favor of parental rights, and voted against bankrupting gun and ammo makers.
Virgil belongs to the constitution party btw.
http://constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/2012Platform/tabid/127/Default.aspx

lgm270 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:23:48 AM »

Don't forget Pat Buchanan.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:28:14 AM »

Quote from: lgm270 on November 22, 2012, 04:23:48 AM

Don't forget Pat Buchanan.

I like old Pat.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:41:18 AM »

Those who understand federalism understand that Ron Paul has never voted against the Constitution. If a bill with seemingly good intentions violates the Constitution Ron Paul won't vote for it, period.

If you believe it's OK to violate the Constitution for the sake of good intentions then don't complain if the Constitution is violated for the sake of bad intentions. You either believe in the Constitution as a limit on the power of government or you don't. You can't pick and choose when it should be violated.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:56:19 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 22, 2012, 04:41:18 AM

Those who understand federalism understand that Ron Paul has never voted against the Constitution. If a bill with seemingly good intentions violates the Constitution Ron Paul won't vote for it, period.

If you believe it's OK to violate the Constitution for the sake of good intentions then don't complain if the Constitution is violated for the sake of bad intentions. You either believe in the Constitution as a limit on the power of government or you don't. You can't pick and choose when it should be violated.

it doesn't take a whole lot of research to learn the truth.
Goode of the constitution party voted opposite of Paul on those important issues.
we have a CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, so who would you say should decide who gets protection and who does not. thanks to the republican house, Ruger, S&W, etc are still in business, and parents have to be notified before your "under age" daughter can be transported across state lines for abortions.
take the trouble to read the party platform of Mr. Goode or believe Mr. Paul. everyone has a choice.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2012, 05:19:34 AM »

Quote

we have a CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, so who would you say should decide who gets protection and who does not.

The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, period. The federal government is only supposed to do what is granted by the Constitution. Anything else is reserved for the states themselves. Protecting the firearms industry at the federal level is not a power given to the federal government by the Constitution, it's a state issue.

If you allow the government the power to protect the firearms industry at the federal level then you are also giving the federal government power to destroy the firearms industry since you have now granted them the power to do so. It is much safer to stay within the confines of the Constitution otherwise you are opening the door for future administrations to abuse the new power you have given them. Ron Paul understood this so even though he is 100% pro gun he voted against that bill since it was outside the power granted to the federal government. It isn't rocket science.

BUGEYE · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2012, 05:46:51 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 22, 2012, 05:19:34 AM

The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, period.

that's funny, I always thought it was for the protection of THE PEOPLE. my copy has THE PEOPLE all over it.
if you want each state to enforce it, THE PEOPLE in, say, Alabama, would be in good shape.
but what of our friends in say, California, they would be shafted big time.

so you would let the antis kill the gun and ammo makers and take the away the rights of parents to at least be advised that their grandchild was on the way to be murdered.
every state is different, so if they are the enforcers, then we should declare the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES null and void.

the two votes I have mentioned here had to be handled expediently. if we had waited until there were lawsuits that after years worked their way to the SCOTUS, then it would be too late for gun makers to start over and many babies would have been needlessly murdered.

The right to "LIFE", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2012, 06:40:56 AM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on November 22, 2012, 05:46:51 AM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 22, 2012, 05:19:34 AM
The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, period.
that's funny, I always thought it was for the protection of THE PEOPLE. my copy has THE PEOPLE all over it.
if you want each state to enforce it, THE PEOPLE in, say, Alabama, would be in good shape.
but what of our friends in say, California, they would be shafted big time.

so you would let the antis kill the gun and ammo makers and take the away the rights of parents to at least be advised that their grandchild was on the way to be murdered.
every state is different, so if they are the enforcers, then we should declare the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES null and void.

the two votes I have mentioned here had to be handled expediently. if we had waited until there were lawsuits that after years worked their way to the SCOTUS, then it would be too late for gun makers to start over and many babies would have been needlessly murdered.

The right to "LIFE", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

OK, so you're in favor of violating the Constitution if it suits your agenda. You're in the majority these days. I am not in favor of violating the Constitution even if it's for a seemingly good cause, neither is Ron Paul which is why he is worthy of admiration.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2012, 12:19:55 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on November 22, 2012, 05:46:51 AM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 22, 2012, 05:19:34 AM
The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, period.
that's funny, I always thought it was for the protection of THE PEOPLE. my copy has THE PEOPLE all over it.
if you want each state to enforce it, THE PEOPLE in, say, Alabama, would be in good shape.
but what of our friends in say, California, they would be shafted big time.

so you would let the antis kill the gun and ammo makers and take the away the rights of parents to at least be advised that their grandchild was on the way to be murdered.
every state is different, so if they are the enforcers, then we should declare the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES null and void.

the two votes I have mentioned here had to be handled expediently. if we had waited until there were lawsuits that after years worked their way to the SCOTUS, then it would be too late for gun makers to start over and many babies would have been needlessly murdered.

The right to "LIFE", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

I bet your copy says this.......

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

Article [X] of the Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You have to remember, Paul really believes in the Constitution. Most representing us in DC only give lip service to it.Goode spent most of his political life as a Democrat. He was a pro life and Second Amendment Democrat which is rare indeed.He sided with the Republicans on some issues and this didn't win any friends within his party.He also supported the tobacco and Big Oil industry.Of the 435 members of the House of Reps, he had the 13th highest amount of stock in the oil industry. He stands to gain big time when the prices go up and legislation passes for the them.

Do I think he would be better for the country than Obama or Romney?...........No Brainer!
But I didn't trust his ties with big oil and Tobacco, so voted for Johnson in the general.
BTW! I agree with you and IGM270 about Pat Buchanan.If the Republican party had backed him instead of turning their back on him,the party would be better today for it.He would be near the top of my Top ten most admirable people in politics.

mechanic · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2012, 12:54:17 PM »

I know that I'm headed in a different direction with this, but quite frankly there are few in politics that I admire.

I admire a now long dead preacher who made a trip to the local hospital every day, and visited every room..sometimes taking all day. The same man refused a raise in pay, and in the late 1980s was making $600.00 a month.

I admire my long dead grandmother, who lived 97 years, the last 55 in a house with no indoor plumbing and a wood cookstove, and who still fed the hogs, chickens and cows at 5:00 am well into her 80's....and never complained.

I admire my Dad who suffered greatly all his short life from injuries he suffered in WWII, but never mentioned a battle, and never thought he did enough.

I admire my wife, who spends 30 hours a week keeping other people's infants at a daycare, and who lavished love on them they don't get from their own mama, and who remembers the names of kids she loved that way 20 or more years ago.

I could go on...but sometimes I think we admire the wrong people when we admire sports stars, politicians and actors. The people around us who make our lives liveable are much more admirable.

Ben

LONGTOM · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:15:34 PM »

PAUL is good on the Constitution, unfortunately he is terrible on many other important matters which drops him back down in my book.
If it was only that simple, but there are many more things a person must be if running for a public office and most of those he is on the other side of the fence from me.

LONGTOM

nw_hunter · « **Reply #13 on:** November 22, 2012, 02:58:06 PM »

Quote from: LONGTOM on November 22, 2012, 02:15:34 PM

PAUL is good on the Constitution, unfortunately he is terrible on many other important matters which drops him back down in my book.
If it was only that simple, but there are many more things a person must be if running for a public office and most of those he is on the other side of the fence from me.

LONGTOM

Many!You wouldn't mind mentioning a few of those would you?
I really wanted people to name some people they admired that are or were in the public eye., and should have perhaps said renowned people. I agree with Mechanic!Some of the most admired I have known are people I've had contact with. Like My parents and the preacher that helped open my eyes and heart.

ironglow · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2012, 03:09:32 PM »

Ron is a good man and a good candidate..many of his ideas are great..some aren't worth a "bucket of warm spit"..just as with any of the conservative candidates who ran for the job...
On the flip side of course..if the liberals ever had a good and sensible idea in their heads..they would probably do no more than take it out and play with it!

Yes, Ron is a good man..but just perhaps not mystically wonder filled as some of his fans view him..

lakota · « **Reply #15 on:** November 22, 2012, 04:22:27 PM »

Quote from: mechanic on November 22, 2012, 12:54:17 PM

I know that I'm headed in a different direction with this, but quite frankly there are few in politics that I admire.

I admire a now long dead preacher who made a trip to the local hospital every day, and visited every room..sometimes taking all day. The same man refused a raise in pay, and in the late 1980s was making $600.00 a month.

I admire my long dead grandmother, who lived 97 years, the last 55 in a house with no indoor plumbing and a wood cookstove, and who still fed the hogs, chickens and cows at 5:00 am well into her 80's....and never complained.

I admire my Dad who suffered greatly all his short life from injuries he suffered in WWII, but never mentioned a battle, and never thought he did enough.

I admire my wife, who spends 30 hours a week keeping other people's infants at a daycare, and who lavished love on them they don't get from their own mama, and who remembers the names of kids she loved that way 20 or more years ago.

I could go on...but sometimes I think we admire the wrong people when we admire sports stars, politicians and actors. The people around us who make our lives liveable are much more admirable.

Ben

Good post. It is the everyday heroes and heroines who are truly worth our admiration.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2012, 02:19:19 AM »

The man I admired most died in 2004, Commander Lloyd Bucher. I was fortunate to have known him.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2012, 02:30:49 AM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on November 22, 2012, 05:46:51 AM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 22, 2012, 05:19:34 AM
The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, period.
that's funny, I always thought it was for the protection of THE PEOPLE. my copy has THE PEOPLE all over it.
if you want each state to enforce it, THE PEOPLE in, say, Alabama, would be in good shape.
but what of our friends in say, California, they would be shafted big time.

so you would let the antis kill the gun and ammo makers and take the away the rights of parents to at least be advised that their grandchild was on the way to be murdered.
every state is different, so if they are the enforcers, then we should declare the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES null and void.

the two votes I have mentioned here had to be handled expediently. if we had waited until there were lawsuits that after years worked their way to the SCOTUS, then it would be too late for gun makers to start over and many babies would have been needlessly murdered.

The right to "LIFE", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Objective of government,

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

LONGTOM · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2012, 08:15:51 AM »

I agree with ironglow on his take on Paul.
Some things just don't sit well with me about his views.
Below are but two of the things I don't agree with him on.

The following things are from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. He also believes marijuana should be completely legal at the federal level

I know he has said he thinks marrage is between one man and one woman but below is a quote from an interview with him
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.^"

^LONGTOM

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2012, 12:33:18 PM »

Quote from: LONGTOM on November 23, 2012, 08:15:51 AM

I agree with ironglow on his take on Paul.
Some things just don't sit well with me about his views.
Below are but two of the things I don't agree with him on.

The following things are from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. He also believes marijuana should be completely legal at the federal level

I know he has said he thinks marrage is between one man and one woman but below is a quote from an interview with him
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.^"

^LONGTOM

LONGTOM,

You may personally not agree with him on those issues and that is OK but if you read the Constitution you will see that Paul is correct in that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage or marijuana.

We as conservatives are treading on dangerous waters when we advocate violating the Constitution to further our own agenda. We need to be consistent on the Constitution or else we become no better than liberals. This is why I respect people like Ron Paul, they always vote for the Constitution even if what they are voting for goes against their personal beliefs.

ironglow · « **Reply #20 on:** November 23, 2012, 01:20:23 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 23, 2012, 12:33:18 PM

Quote from: LONGTOM on November 23, 2012, 08:15:51 AM
I agree with ironglow on his take on Paul.
Some things just don't sit well with me about his views.
Below are but two of the things I don't agree with him on.

The following things are from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. He also believes marijuana should be completely legal at the federal level

I know he has said he thinks marrage is between one man and one woman but below is a quote from an interview with him
"In a 2007 interview, Paul said that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.^"

^LONGTOM

LONGTOM,

You may personally not agree with him on those issues and that is OK but if you read the Constitution you will see that Paul is correct in that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage or marijuana.

We as conservatives are treading on dangerous waters when we advocate violating the Constitution to further our own agenda. We need to be consistent on the Constitution or else we become no better than liberals. This is why I respect people like Ron Paul, they always vote for the Constitution even if what they are voting for goes against their personal beliefs.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Doublebass;
So then, when you noted in your signature line what Romney once may have said about gay marriage, do we assume you were applauding him for his constitutional stand?

With the deleterious effect of both marijuana and gay marriage on the society, one could easily construe them as coming under the heading of "promote the general welfare"...

Certainly that is no greater stretch than killing little boys & girls in the name of "privacy"..

...

BUGEYE · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2012, 03:14:51 AM »

Quote from: ironglow on November 23, 2012, 01:20:23 PM

Doublebass;
So then, when you noted in your signature line what Romney once may have said about gay marriage, do we assume you were applauding him for his constitutional stand?

With the deleterious effect of both marijuana and gay marriage on the society, one could easily construe them as coming under the heading of "promote the general welfare"...

Certainly that is no greater stretch than killing little boys & girls in the name of "privacy".. ...

IG, thanks for this post. you have a better way with words than me.

I do believe that some folks make posts, not based on right or wrong, but WWRPD.

dwalk · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2012, 05:11:25 AM »

Quote from: mechanic on November 22, 2012, 12:54:17 PM

I know that I'm headed in a different direction with this, but quite frankly there are few in politics that I admire.

I admire a now long dead preacher who made a trip to the local hospital every day, and visited every room..sometimes taking all day. The same man refused a raise in pay, and in the late 1980s was making $600.00 a month.

I admire my long dead grandmother, who lived 97 years, the last 55 in a house with no indoor plumbing and a wood cookstove, and who still fed the hogs, chickens and cows at 5:00 am well into her 80's....and never complained.

I admire my Dad who suffered greatly all his short life from injuries he suffered in WWII, but never mentioned a battle, and never thought he did enough.

I admire my wife, who spends 30 hours a week keeping other people's infants at a daycare, and who lavished love on them they don't get from their own mama, and who remembers the names of kids she loved that way 20 or more years ago.

I could go on...but sometimes I think we admire the wrong people when we admire sports stars, politicians and actors. The people around us who make our lives liveable are much more admirable.

Ben

now THIS is what it's all about folks! ^^^^

my Dad is my biggest hero: he's been gone for 14 years now. i still think of him every day and thank God, and my Dad, for all i have now.

other heroes of mine are my deceased father-in-law, my sons and my brother.

there are more, too...maybe this a is a good subject for another thread

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 24, 2012, 12:12:57 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on November 24, 2012, 03:14:51 AM

Quote from: ironglow on November 23, 2012, 01:20:23 PM

Doublebass;
So then, when you noted in your signature line what Romney once may have said about gay marriage, do we assume you were applauding him for his constitutional stand?

With the deleterious effect of both marijuana and gay marriage on the society, one could easily construe them as coming under the heading of "promote the general welfare"...

Certainly that is no greater stretch than killing little boys & girls in the name of "privacy".. ...
IG, thanks for this post. you have a better way with words than me.

I do believe that some folks make posts, not based on right or wrong, but WWRPD.

I can't speak for Ron Paul but I've been known to be wrong before. Maybe you could prove that we're both wrong by posting the articles and sections of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate marijuana and the right to regulate marriage.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2012, 01:59:25 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 24, 2012, 12:12:57 PM

I can't speak for Ron Paul but I've been known to be wrong before. Maybe you could prove that we're both wrong by posting the articles and sections of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate marijuana and the right to regulate marriage.

Oh Yeah!!! I wanna see this!

Jack Ripper · « **Reply #25 on:** November 24, 2012, 03:55:05 PM »

Last time I checked all people were created equal regardless of Race, Religion, Sexual orientation, Age or whatever else you chose to identify yourself as. I just will never understand conservatives who are against this or that. If they really feel that way they are against the Constitution plain and simple. My Grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy for the rights of gay people to get married, or somebody to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home. America was supposed to be free. Not a place where the majority could impose their will on the few. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind. By the way my father was a Dallas Police Officer who was killed by a drunk driver when I was 10 yrs old, It would not hurt my feelings if beer was outlawed but that would be unconstitutional right. All the men in my family served in the armed forces or were in law enforcement, those are the people I admire. Politicians can suck eggs!

BUGEYE · « **Reply #26 on:** November 25, 2012, 05:01:59 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 24, 2012, 12:12:57 PM

I can't speak for Ron Paul but I've been known to be wrong before. Maybe you could prove that we're both wrong by posting the articles and sections of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate marijuana and the right to regulate marriage.

Double, nothing in my posts in this thread was about marriage or dope.
it was about restoring parental rights and protecting legitimate enterprise from the "village" and the "communists".
congress has the right to pass laws that pass constitutional muster, and the two laws I referred to do just that. Virgil Goode of the constitution party voted opposite of Ron Paul and Goode probably knows a thing or two about the constitution.

Anna · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2012, 05:29:27 AM »

From what little I know about Ron Paul, he is a far better cry than what we have had in that office
since Reagan. I didn't like either of the Bush clan, W always had that chimpanzee in the head lights
look on his face. And his daddy thought he was some kind of self imposed royalty who lies.
Now I will say about Clinton, he did understand the importance of a vibrant economy. I didn't care for
a lot of his decisions or how he conducted his personal life. But the man did know economics, and he
knew you do not collect more taxes off unemployed workers. He was dragged by his party kicking and screaming to sign NAFTA and GAT.Both of these programs were the precursors to outsourcing jobs
in this country.And just look what we have now! As far as his personal life, not in the Oval Office go get a room at the motel six! But lets look at that, if you were married to Hillary what would you be doing ?

Anna · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:44:01 AM »

Clinton still was opposed to it, he even went on record as saying it would hurt Anerican workers .
Ole Bill had a lot of faults, but economics was not one of them.
And a lot of his actions were a lot more conservative in nature then anything I've seen come out of
Romney or Obama.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:12:28 PM »

Quote from: BUGEYE on November 25, 2012, 05:01:59 AM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on November 24, 2012, 12:12:57 PM
I can't speak for Ron Paul but I've been known to be wrong before. Maybe you could prove that we're both wrong by posting the articles and sections of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate marijuana and the right to regulate marriage.
Double, nothing in my posts in this thread was about marriage or dope.
it was about restoring parental rights and protecting legitimate enterprise from the "village" and the "communists".
congress has the right to pass laws that pass constitutional muster, and the two laws I referred to do just that. Virgil Goode of the constitution party voted opposite of Ron Paul and Goode probably knows a thing or two about the constitution.

You quoted IG's posts which mentioned those two issues, thanked him and implied that Ron Paul and I don't know what's right from wrong which is why I asked you to prove we are wrong based on the Constitution.

As far as Virgil Goode goes, see nw_hunter's post #10 in which he addresses this. You and Virgil Goode ought to read the 10th Amendment so you can understand why Ron Paul voted the way he did on those two issues. Just because a law passes congressional muster does not mean it passes Constitutional muster. Obamacare passed congressional muster and supreme court muster. Does that mean you believe that it's Constitutional? The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in plain English so that everyone could understand it. It means what it says including Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're welcome to prove me wrong on the two issues that you mentioned by stating the article and section from the Constitution which gives the federal government the power to regulate each of those issues.