I'm not entirely sure how to answer your awesome, thought-provoking question, but here is how I think it could be answered: it's my understanding that due to the separation of powers doctrine as it exists at the US level and in most states, the court cannot order the legislature to alter an existing law, even if it is unconstitutional. This is how the majority of wacky laws remain on the books even when they are successfully challenged. I'm pretty sure some states still have anti-sodomy laws despite the rulings that such laws are unconstitutional. The same, I believe, is true for anti-miscegnation (sp?) laws.

However, those laws would then be non-entities as far as the executive branch should be concerned. Whether they are is a different story, as the article makes clear -- but given that the executive branch of any American legislature is generally only able to enforce laws that exist, enforcing ones that do not exist seems to go beyond the scope of the branch. The police are an element of the executive branch, as their job is to enforce laws that are lawfully promulgated by the legislature. I'd think, therefore, that enforcing a law that doesn't exist by virtue of judicial declaration is an ultra vires act.