[tpaine]

Due process must be used in the writing of enforceable constitutional law. -- Legislators in the USA are obligated by oath to write only constitutional regulations regarding our lives, liberties or properties. -- They cannot prohibit acts [or items of property], just because they are morally offended by the act, or imagine that the item is 'too dangerous' to possess. -- Prohibitions can only be enacted by Amendment.

My position is [as you could read above] that States can regulate criminal aspects of 'sins' like prostitution/gambling/etc, -- They have never lost that power.

Well, let's make sure I understand.
(1) Does Texas have the authority under the constitution to pass a law making it a felony for accepting money in exchange for sex?

Texas does not have the power, under the US Constitution, to pass a prohibitive 'law' making it a crime to exchange sex for love, kindness, food, drinks or money. It does have the power to regulate the public aspects of such exchanges, -- IE, streetwalking/whorehouses/pandering, etc.

(2) Does Texas have the authority under the constitution to pass a law making it a felony to commit sodomy?

See (1). - Same principle applies. Sodomy is sex, despite Clintonian objections.

(3) Does Texas have the power under the Constitution to pass a law making it a felony to perform an abortion.

Abortion can be murder. If a grand jury so indicts, a murder trial is obligated under both fed and state laws/constitutions .

(4) Does Texas have the power under the Constitution to pass a law making it a felony to carry a concealed weapon.

Texas does not have the power under the US Constitution to pass a 'law' to criminalize the carrying of arms, concealed or not.

Note, I'm not asking whether these are wise laws. I'm asking about whether you believe Texas has the power to enact such laws, regardless of their wisdom.

Note I'm not questioning the wisdom behind your odd idea that our rights to life, liberty, or property can be ignored by governments.

My answers to the above questions are Yes, Yes, Yes, and No, respectively. Until the language I quoted above, I thought your answers would be No, No, No, and No. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous posts.

You misunderstand the principles behind our Constitution, imo.

[ModelBreaker]

Then I did not misunderstand your position. I strongly believe you are referring to the Constitution as you would have written it. Not to the Constitution as written. And that’s a completely different discussion. Rather, it should be a completely different discussion.