The 10th amendment is a explicit limit to federal power. State powers are limited to those enumerated in state constitutions. There are only two states that have the constitutional (state constitution) power to regulate morality.
The 10th amendment is a explicit limit to federal power. State powers are limited to those enumerated in state constitutions.
Yes. But besides incorporating other provisions of the Constitution, the 10th does not add additional limits to the States. And, it's not clear what the Framers meant by 'respectively.' My best guess is that they meant just to leave thing as they were as between the States and the people. Had they intended a change, they would have been more explicit. In other words, the 10th was there to make sure that a specific enumeration of the rights of the people did not turn into an exclusive list as between the Feds and State, The Feds and the people and the States and the People.
There are only two states that have the constitutional (state constitution) power to regulate morality.
Generally, what I have been sloppily referring, on this thead, as morals legislation is regarding as having been in the police power of the State. As the States were sovereign nations before the Articles and the Constitution, their powers were limited in the Constitution only by the enumerated powers of congress and explicit prohibitions.
In using the term "morals legislation", I really adopted the libertarian terms of argument. Laws against prostitution and sodomy, for example, are actually not a legislation of thoughts--but of actions. Thinking about having sex for money is not illegal. Similarly, having sex for money is illegal even if the person doing that is aware it is immoral and feels badly about doing it. So morals legislation is not regulating whether a person believes in morality or has moral or immoral thoughts. It is regulating behavior. It only becomes "morals" legislation because we posit that legislators must have been making moral judgments when they passed the law.
But, the necessary conclusion from that is that there is no real "moral basis" distinction between laws against prostitution and assault. Both involve judgments about morality to some extent in that they involve a state judgment that the prohibited activity is immoral. Rather the, sub silentio distinction being made is between so-called victimless immorality and other forms of immorality. There is also a sense in this terminology that laws regulating anything having to do with sex are bad. But sex doesn't make the complete distinction; because most folks arguing that the states have no power to regulate prostitution would also argue the states have no power to regulate marijuana. So the only principled distinction between so-called morals legislation and legislation against assault is the NATURE of the legislature's moral judgment in passing the law. If the moral judgement involves so-called victimless crimes, it is unconsitutional according to much of the argument on this thread.
Once you get into the details of State constitutions, I have to confess my ignorance. I would be interested to know which two states have that Constitutional authority, as you see it, and (excluding the issue whether the Federal Constitution has prohibited to the States the power to enact morals-legisation, which has been flogged mercilessly on this thread) why you believe that the other 48 do not have that power. Do those two states have state constitutional provisions prohibiting, say, prostitution? While the others have no clause at all regarding the subject?