You said: "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?"
I have read my state constitution and the law is my business. You are missing an essential point: The state and the people are one in the same. The soveriegn people elect their representative govern their state, and the state is then soveriegn too. You suggest that the people do not have the power to govern themselves. But the fact that they are the source of all power must mean that their elected representatives in the state legislature have ALL of that power, unless the state constitution prohibits its exercise.
What the state constitutions do is set up a form or method of government. It confers no power to the legislature because it already has it all. By contrast, the federal constitution says that the federal government has NO POWER except for the specific powers that are set forth in the federal Constitution, a document created by the. states keep in mind. The states were going to give up as little of there power as possible. Just enough for the national govenment to work and do the things that the states could not do well, like wage war or make treaties.
The state governments are not "tyranny" because the legislatures are vested with the soveriegn power of the people themselves. By definition, that cannot tyrrany.