I don't find any provision in the Constitution that prohibits laws governing any of those things, except perhaps the Asian-Americans under the 14th Amendment, though they were not intended to be covered by it.
If elected legislators chose to pass such laws, and elected governors chose to sign them, both of which are highly unlikely, as I think you will admit, they presumably had some reason to do so. But we have by intention a government of three equal branches. If the Supremes choose to step in and undo such legislation, they are, IMO, putting themselves above the elected legislators and executives and tilting the government so that we do not have three equal branches, but have one superior and two subservient branches, who may only pass laws which the Supremes agree with. Acting, as it were, as a super-governatorial veto. Rather than accepting their proper Constitutional role as one of three branches all of which are obligated to comply with the Constitution. |
