Please accept this in a positive way.
The thesis seems muddled — which 2 statements (bullets maybe?) and how do they stand against each other?
You have all the data but it seems slapped together rather than constructed.
May I suggest you go back and outline the document, then post it so that it is clear what the comparison/contrasting arguments are.
The underlying premise is great — the delivery might need burnishing.
EG, it makes no sense to say the federal government is responsible for a post office, but then to deny the government the authority to raise revenues to fund that post office.
The Implied Powers doctrine has long been accepted as legitimate, with the caveat that it falls within the doctrine of enumerated powers which set a limit on federal adventurism.
The second statement, frankly, is gobbledygook.