Then there are no morals at all with that particular take on how laws, morals, and the rest are formed. Equality, personal sovereignty, etc mean nothing because they are just constructs of some human’s mind that somehow got mindshare; all meaningless under your guidelines.

That's the thing though. Morals are subjective, not objective. But also morals are orthogonal to laws.

Consider a law banning the eating of meat, vs one dictating that meat should be eaten at least once per week. One of these laws must be enacted. Which one is superior? Obviously (I think), the vegetarian would consider the former superior, and the meat lover the latter.

But we can also look further into environmental differences. Given an hypothetical area where animals are abundant and plants aren't, the latter law would generally be considered superior. In an area where this is reversed, the former would be. Ultimately these will be subjective values based on the actual situation.

And there's always the power dynamic that "trumps" situations. A vegetarian gaining the power to make laws in a vegetatively poor area will obviously not - necessarily - lead to the latter law being enacted. Even if the majority of the population is made of meat lovers. And in a world dominated by vegetarians, the many will applaud and say the ban on meat is the "right thing" for those in said vegetatively poor area.

All that is just an elaborate illustration to say that yes, equality, personal sovereignty, etc really are - subjective - human constructs. And any laws surrounding them will be considered superior/inferior based on how these constructs are valued.