"Otherwise, you would be giving nearly unlimited power to your State government. Surely you are stupid enough to think that the Founders would approve of such a system"
"surely you are stupid enough"? Or did you mean to say "surely you aren't stupid enough"?
It wouldn't be practical to expect that every specific power be listed in a State constitution before the legislature is allowed to exercise it. The legitimacy of the power comes from the more general language of the Constitution, which insures things such as the people who make laws are affected by people who have to live with them.
Checks and balances and representation prevent the absurdities you're citing as examples of what could happen - Not specific authorizing language.
Actually, you are wrong. VERY wrong. Our governing bodies were to be those of ENUMERATED powers, not limitless amorphous "what ever we say we can do" type powers. The "legitimacy" comes from a solid contract with "We the People" for very specific functions. As I said, if a people of a State pass an Amendment to their Constitution to allow a government a certain power, and it doesn't violate the US Constitution, then that government can make laws and prohibitions in that area.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp here. Trial lawyers, activists judges, and power hungry legislators would have it otherwise.
Which are you?