Bauer is correct, but is this point being articulated clearly to the faith community, among both Catholics and Protestants?
The glib answer at Saddleback belies the seriousness of the question posed by Warren, and a man who claims professorial status on the United States Constitution should have seen it as a constitutional question--not merely a "theological" one.
The answer was not above the "pay grade" of America's Founders, and their answer appeared in their philosophical foundation statement, where they explicitly staked the claim to "Creator-endowed" rights. Why else would the rights to life and liberty be deemed "unalienable"? If such rights were at the whim of a single citizen (a woman) or of judges or legislators, then they could not be claimed to be "unalienable."
Thomas Jefferson capsulized it as:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
Catholics and Protestants, as well as other religious persons, who love liberty might examine the candidates' willingness to affirm the basic principle underlying our form of government.
I have a hunch that law schools assign the bottom of the faculty barrel to teach "Constitutional law.". I recall Billyboy Clinton once taught it also--he who reminded us one day "as the Constitution says--'of the people, by the people and for the people.' "
So it figures that O-Bunghole wouldn't get that a question about rights is not a theological one.