Core Constitutional Protections: What happens when AG's pick and choose what laws they are going to enforce

In this unbelievably frank synopsis of the U.S. Attorney General's views, the question we must ask as where he thinks this discretion comes from.  Is this really the type of reasoning we need from senior Administration officials? 
"It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections." 
So now we have AG's from various states determining that they are not going to follow the legitimately passed laws of state legislative bodies.  His reasoning is that the AGs are taking this stand based on their own personal interpretation of core constitutional issues like equal protection.  Wow, I didn't know that core constitutional issues began and ended with the personal determination of one state or federal attorney general.  So, using his reasoning, I guess we should disregard prosecution of those laws that interfere with our constitutional right to bear arms.  The bottom line is that this is nothing more than lawlessness being preached from the Attorney General of the United States who directly works for the President of the United States.  The ramifications of continuing this type of policy would be devastating to the rule of law in the states and the country and is nothing more than advocating no law at all.