A federal statute imposed criminal penalties for killing certain specified animals that have been determined by Congress to be of importance to the tourism industry in the region in which the animal was located. Among the animals protected was the red fox. However, a state in which the red fox was located classified the animal as a varmint that could be destroyed at will by anyone with a general hunting license. A rancher who possessed a valid state general hunting license regularly shot and killed red foxes that ate his artichoke plants.

If the rancher is prosecuted under the federal statute and challenges the constitutionality of the law, which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument in support of the federal statute?

a. The commerce power.
b. The Necessary and Proper Clause.
c. The police power.
d. The power to regulate federal lands.

Answer:

c.

Explanation:

If for example  in a neighborhood , people have different rules as to what goes on their rented private lands and while the neighbor with blue house allows bugs as a cruelty free zoning opportunity ,the neighbor with the red house made it well known that any bugs that are on his land can be hurt and killed with any process as long as it doesn't affect his property.The bugs where killed but as the blue neighbor disagrees they go to the townspeople to settle if those bug should have been transported to the blue house.In this case the case should be given to the closest authority which is the police. please correct this story to explain the situation at hand.