Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) referred to a pocket-sized version of the U.S. Constitution that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh often referred to it during the judge’s confirmation hearing as “that book you carry.” That “book” contained a copy of the document that Harris and every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold.

It’s obvious that Harris the other Democrats questioning Judge Kavanaugh that they have little regard for the Constitution. And I might and the same is true of most Republicans. Sen. Ben Sasse’s comments were on the money, but, alas, almost no one will pay attention to what he said, but it’s the essence of what the Constitution was designed to do an almost everyone ignores:

After denigrated Kavanaugh and the Constitution, Harris went on to ask a question about “unenumerated rights”:

I’m going to ask you about unenumerated rights. You gave a speech praising former Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Rhodes, there’s been much discussion about that, and you wrote, quote, celebrating his success, that “success in stemming the general tide of free-wheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights,” that is what you said in celebration of Justice Rehnquist. So “unenumerated rights” is a phrase that lawyers use, but I want to make clear what we’re talking about. It means rights that are protected by the Constitution even if they’re not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They are not in that book that you carry.

Harris continued:

What we are talking about is the right to vote, that’s an unenumerated right, the right to have children. The right to have control over the upbringing of your children. The right to refuse medical care. The right to love the partner of your choice, the right to marry, and the right to have an abortion. Now, putting those unenumerated rights in the context of the statement that you made, which was to praise the stemming of the general tide of free-wheeling creation of unenumerated rights, which means you were, the interpretation there is you were praising the quest to end those unenumerated rights. My question to you is which of the rights that I just mentioned do you want to end to or rollback?

That book that Judge Kavanaugh carries with him is very clear about enumerated powers and by extension rights not specifically delegated to the national government via “that book,” that is, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As a Senator, Kamala Harris should know that the Constitution addresses the question of unenumerated powers. The Federal government only has those powers listed (enumerated) in the Constitution. Any other powers are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Her list of “rights” is not the business of Congress. They are left to the states or to the people. On the question of marriage, there is no power enumerated giving the national government to define marriage or rule that killing unborn babies is a fundamental human right. There is no law that says people can’t love whomever or whatever they want.

Here’s the bigger issue. By what standard do Congress and the courts determine what’s a right? By what standard to the people determine what’s a right and what’s not?

The Constitution doesn’t say, but the Declaration of Independence does. That book Judge Kavanaugh carries with him references the Declaration of Independence in its closing statement just above the signature of George Washington:

The Declaration contains these our references to God:

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
3. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
4. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Constitution doesn’t prohibit rape, incest, murder, or theft. Does this mean that it supports moral anarchy? And if it doesn’t, then what were the founders thinking when they left the Constitution adrift without a moral anchor? There is nothing in the Constitution that defines ethics, the parameters of marriage relationships, or what constitutes a family.

The founders relied on Natural Law and the Common Law that were heavily influenced by biblical law (Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 18:17; 2 Cor. 13:1): “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court” (Art. 3, sec. 3).

Following English jurist William Blackstone, who wrote:

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered [permitted] to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime.

Kamala Harris rejects any talk of divine law or natural law or even Common Law. This is why she and others want to pack the courts with people who reject any outside restraints on moral conduct. Wit five judges they can control our lives. That’s why there’s so much at stake with Judge Kavanaugh. Their need for five justices to control the direction of the court is in jeopardy.