It actually makes a huge difference in evaluating statutory and/or regulatory schemes which impact the exercise of a right that is now enshrined in the constitution, at least on the state level. For a statute or regulation that has a negative impact on a constitutional right to survive a legal challenge typically requires that the AG meet a much higher burden than if the right were merely statutory. On a Federal level, since the Roosevelt Supreme Court construed the Commerce clause to have eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth amendments, it probably doesn't matter. There are a couple of cases pending construing Obamacare that give some hope that the question of the expansive reading of the Commerce clause may come back before the Supremes, in which case it may also turn out to matter a great deal down the road in the context of a conflict between a state constitution and a Federal statute.