[Captain Jack Aubrey]

In Virginia, at least, but to my understanding, all other states as well, the state legislature has power over every aspect of what can be governed unless that state constitution prohibits the exercise of that power.

Or the federal Constitution prohibits it, like making treaties or coining money, etc.

This is a little understood fact, but it is a fact. It is the opposite of the federal constitution, through which the states created a federal government and allowed it certain limited powers.

The states pre-existed the nation. The states were sovereign. The state legislatures, as the elected representatives of the sovereign people of the state, could pass any law on any topic, unless prohibited by their state constitution.

For example, a state legislature could pass a statute establishing a state religion, and some did.

The Congress was prohibited from doing so, after the 1st amendment was ratified by the states. But the states still could unless prohibited by the state constitution.

[Durus]

This becomes awkward for me because it couldn't be more clear that you have (in my opinion of course) a completely backwards view of government in general.

The Federal Constitution delineates the powers of federal government. It has no powers except for those explicitly granted to it. The bill of rights was added only as an additional measure of prohibition.

State constitutions serve the save function up to and including a bill of rights. If you were to read your constitution you would see that it lists explicit powers and some explicit prohibitions.

If, as you claim, states have the practically unlimited power to regulate from whence did this power derive? If, as you claim, states have the practically unlimited power to regulate why would they have a constitution delineating powers? Wouldn't it be accurate to call a system where the state has practically unlimited powers a tyranny?