Under the 10th amendment, the states retain whatever powers they had and are not explicitly forbidden to exercise. Where are they explicitly forbidden to exercise the power to proscribe certain types of sexual conduct?
Where were they ever given such power? I see no such grants in state constitutions, and there is certainly no such federal power. Certainly, the colonies had 'sin' laws, but we fought a revolution to gain freedom from such arbitrary rules.
Since you said never, you must refrain from pointing to the 14th amendment, since that wasn't passed until after the civil war.
The 14th was passed to remedy the erronious Barron decision. The Constitution & BOR's have aways been the supreme Law of the Land, as per Art VI.
However I don't think even the 14th amendment prevents them from passing such laws.
Why do you fight the clear intent of ALL of our founding principles? I don't 'get' it.
That doesn't mean I necessarily think such laws are a good idea, Justice Thomas doesn't think so either and in general I tend to agree, mainly on enforceability grounds.
You have a real problem.
I suggest you give it more thought as to why you think states need prohibitive powers.
pain: Where were they ever given such power?
Missouri, Alabama…
I see no such grants in state constitutions,
That would be the 10th.
and there is certainly no such federal power.
That would also be the 10th
Certainly, the colonies had 'sin' laws, but we fought a revolution to gain freedom from such arbitrary rules.
All of “such” arbitrary rules, like consensual incest, come from the 10th, why are you such a hypocrite?
It not necessarily a question of "need", but for one thing the general lawmaking power devolved to the states, not to the federal government, they don't or at least didn't, need a specific grant of power to pass most laws, as long as those laws were not violative of their own Constitution, nor of the body of laws known as the Common Law. There is of course the public health conderation. Are states granted the power to quarentine individuals for the good of the communitY? They certainly did it, and occasionaly still do.
I suggest you give consideration to the "need" for states at all.