Refuse Federal Overreach
10th-Amendment sovereignty — nullify unconstitutional federal mandates.
What this measures
Does this state official defend state sovereignty against unconstitutional federal action — anti-commandeering, refusing federal strings, resisting overreach on guns, life, and religious liberty?
Why it matters
The federal government is one of enumerated, delegated powers (10th Amendment); everything else belongs to the states and the people. A state legislator who rubber-stamps every unconstitutional federal mandate — on guns, life, education, or religious liberty — has surrendered the very sovereignty his oath defends. Subsidiarity is a creational ordinance: authority belongs at the lowest competent level. This category measures whether a state official guards that landmark.
Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.
— Proverbs 22:28The 5 scored questions
Each question is binary (True / False / null). True earns +2 points. Null is "not yet verified from primary sources" — neither penalized nor credited. Use the toggle below to see the wording for federal, state, or local officials — the moral spirit is identical across tiers; what changes is the chair making the call. Read the tier architecture explainer →
-
Q1. Official has voted for or sponsored 10th-Amendment nullification or anti-commandeering measuresQ1. Official has voted for or sponsored 10th-Amendment nullification or anti-commandeering measuresQ1. Not scored at the local tier — federal/state-only question.
-
Q2. Official has declined unconstitutional federal mandates or federal strings on the stateQ2. Official has declined unconstitutional federal mandates or federal strings on the stateQ2. Not scored at the local tier — federal/state-only question.
-
Q3. Official has resisted federal overreach on guns, life, education, or religious libertyQ3. Official has resisted federal overreach on guns, life, education, or religious libertyQ3. Not scored at the local tier — federal/state-only question.
-
Q4. Official affirms state sovereignty against unconstitutional federal actionQ4. Official affirms state sovereignty against unconstitutional federal actionQ4. Not scored at the local tier — federal/state-only question.
-
Q5. Official has opposed federal capture of state elections, data, or landQ5. Official has opposed federal capture of state elections, data, or landQ5. Not scored at the local tier — federal/state-only question.
Key bills, votes, and laws we track
- Second Amendment Sanctuary / Firearms Protection Acts — State refusal to enforce federal gun control.
- Anti-commandeering / nullification statutes — State bills declining to enforce specific unconstitutional federal acts.
- Federal-funds-with-strings refusals — Votes to reject federal money that compels ungodly or unconstitutional policy.
Organizations and PAC vectors we score
- Tenth Amendment Center — Model nullification legislation; sponsorship factored as positive evidence.
- State sovereignty / convention-of-states caucuses — Membership factored as positive evidence (verify by primary source).
⚠️ Position-level disqualifiers
- Voted to accept federal mandates that violate state constitutional limits
- Opposed Second Amendment sanctuary or anti-commandeering protections
- Surrendered control of state elections or land to federal capture
A candidate matching any of the above is graded down to the floor of this category regardless of other answers in the rubric.
Where this lives in the scorecard
This category contributes 10 of 30 in the 🏛️ State First tier (30 pts total) and 10 of 100 in the grand total. See the full scoring system for the 60/40 weighting rationale and the letter-grade scale (A 90+ / B 80 / C 70 / D 60 / F <60).