Implied Powers- Required or Excessive?

Throughout the history of the United States of America, the national government has gained more nad more "implied powers."  now some people think that this is in exact contrast to the idea of "limited government," while others believe it is jsut necesary as time gois on and the world changes.  both sides have their strong points.  i personally believe that it is necesary to have these implied powers.  There is no doubt that the people thatwrote the purposes and principles of our government were some of the most innovative and inteligent people of their time, if not of all time.  Still, they could not think of every situation The United States would encounter, the world is completely different now than it was then. Not only throughout history, but also in the present day, i think there are many examples of implied powers that have been necesary or at least beneficial to the purposes and principles of government.  the United States Postal Service is, inm my personal opinion, a fantastic example of this. The goal of creating a more perfect union was lived out by the creation of the United States Postal Service.  in no document made when this country wasw founded, does it say the government is allowed to deliver letters and packages from citizen to citizen and charge fees for it as a service, but at the time of its instillment, there was no UPS or Federal Express- it did a world of good to connect the people of the United States.  to levy taxes is an implied power, but without these taxes, we wouldnt have any medacare and hardly any infrastructure.  This has been necesary for not only General Welfare, but the Common Defense, and much more- basically naything that the government does costs cmoney, money from taxes.

prop 24

     Prop 24 presents a tax to multi-state buisnesses that operate, produce, employ, and/or sell in the state of California.  This would bring an estimated 1.7 billion dollars into the state through taxes that otherwise would have gone to to these corporations, people feel differently about the direction of that 1.7 billion dollars tho.  see although the 1.7 does not go directly to small businesses in our state, it would not be taken from these business that do invest in multiple small businesses through their purchases. in my opinion this just rises the chances of these coorporations having to lay off more workers, with the great possibility of these workers being in california.  Now this also contributes to our state not being a "business welcoming" state.  i think that overall this hurts the economy's natural trickle down system that sometimes is the only way for government decisions to reach small businesses

Meg Whitman's Illegal Immagrant House Maid- What Should It Mean?

During this election for governor in California, it came up that Meg Whitman used to employ an illegal citizen to clean her house, clearly out of line wiht the mindset of her campaign that speaks strongly of not letting illegal citizens and foreigners take our jobs and bringing lost ones back to our state.  Although there's the obbvious veiw that this is hypocritical of her and she isnt true to this belief in empploying Californian citizens, it can also be seen as the very essence of the point she is tryign to make: right now we are reliant on illegal immagrants for many roles in our society, so much so that even if you dont like it or believe in it, you'll buy into it at some point in time.  I completely see whay someone would see this as a illegitimate aspect ot her campaign since it puts her past actions at contrast with her current beliefs that she has been preaching around the state; but at same time maybe it proves as an example of how big this issue she is trying to fight has really become.  Personally, i think it's both: its definately an example of how the role of the illegal immagrant is because even someone who lobbies against it cannot avoid buying into it themselves, adn its hippocritical mainly because she tried to hide it instead of making it an example of the issue herself.

Page 84

In the United States of America, the family unit is a huge influence on one's views in life.  our parents are the first source of opinion we ever hear when it comes to politics and world events.  This has also been true for myself, i have felt that my political veiws are very similar to those of my parents.  it was really until my sophomore year at Highschool that i started to question and challenge the veiws i had unconsciously adopted because my parents believed in those.  Although this can lead to people voting according to the political party their family favors, not truly assessing what that candidate offers for them, I believe that the family unit is the only way to start the idea of political thought at an early age.  I myself have some Republican veiws and some Democratic veiws that I have become familar wiht since my parents associate themselves wiht different parties.  I thinkg the average teen in America associates themselves with the political party of their parents.  i feel that it is important that an interest and concern about politics and national desicions is important to our democratic nation continuing on a path of success.