Refuse State Overreach
Subsidiarity — local control against unconstitutional state mandates.
What this measures
Does this local official assert lawful local control against unconstitutional state mandates, affirm subsidiarity, and protect citizens from state overreach?
Why it matters
Jethro's counsel to Moses is the biblical pattern for subsidiarity: govern at the lowest competent level, closest to the people. A mayor, council, sheriff, or school board that meekly enforces every unconstitutional state mandate — lockdowns, curriculum dictates, ESG/CBDC pilots — has abandoned the citizens it was elected to shield. This category measures whether a local official guards the household and the town against overreach from the level above.
Look for able men… and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
— Exodus 18:21The 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 asserted local control against unconstitutional state mandatesQ1. Not scored at the state tier — federal-only question (no state-level chair).Q1. Official has asserted local control against unconstitutional state mandates
-
Q2. Official has declined state strings that compel ungodly or unconstitutional local policyQ2. Not scored at the state tier — federal-only question (no state-level chair).Q2. Official has declined state strings that compel ungodly or unconstitutional local policy
-
Q3. Official has protected local citizens from state overreach (lockdowns, mandates, ESG)Q3. Not scored at the state tier — federal-only question (no state-level chair).Q3. Official has protected local citizens from state overreach (lockdowns, mandates, ESG)
-
Q4. Official affirms subsidiarity — decisions made at the lowest competent levelQ4. Not scored at the state tier — federal-only question (no state-level chair).Q4. Official affirms subsidiarity — decisions made at the lowest competent level
-
Q5. Official has refused to enforce unconstitutional state directivesQ5. Not scored at the state tier — federal-only question (no state-level chair).Q5. Official has refused to enforce unconstitutional state directives
Key bills, votes, and laws we track
- Local sanctuary / non-enforcement resolutions — Council or county refusal to enforce unconstitutional state directives.
- Local control / home-rule assertions — Measures protecting local authority against state preemption that compels ungodly policy.
- Anti-ESG / anti-CBDC local resolutions — Refusals to pilot or mandate ESG scoring or central-bank digital currency.
Organizations and PAC vectors we score
- County sheriffs' constitutional caucuses — Constitutional-sheriff commitments factored as positive evidence (verify by primary source).
- Local parental-rights / school-board coalitions — Resistance to state curriculum mandates factored as positive evidence.
⚠️ Position-level disqualifiers
- Enforced unconstitutional state lockdowns or mandates against local citizens
- Surrendered home-rule authority to compel ungodly state policy locally
- Piloted ESG scoring or CBDC infrastructure at the local level
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 🏛️ Local 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).