Chapter 4 – Our Solution
The Sword: Constitutional Supremacy and Subversion Prevention Act
A model law enforcing the oath of office and ensuring that no official—elected, appointed, military, or law enforcement—subverts the supremacy of the Constitution. Crafted to align with Article VI and the Bill of Rights, it provides civil and criminal remedies against those who betray their sworn duty.
The Constitution was designed to secure liberty by making itself the supreme law of the land. Article VI requires every official at every level to swear an oath to support it. That oath means something: no officer may substitute foreign, religious, or ideological law for the Constitution, nor may they use their office to deny equal protection, due process, or fundamental freedoms.
The Constitutional Supremacy and Subversion Prevention Act ensures that principle is enforceable. Every oath-bound officer—whether in Congress, a statehouse, a courtroom, a patrol car, or the armed services—must uphold the Constitution. Any act of constitutional subversion is null and void, and officials proven to engage in it are subject to removal, civil liability, and criminal prosecution under existing federal law.
Where the Constitution Protection Act (CPA) is the shield—defending citizens from compelled belief in taxpayer-funded institutions—the CSSPA is the sword, holding oath-bound officials personally accountable for subverting the highest law of the land. Together, they restore the balance the Founders envisioned: a free people under a neutral government, with no man above the Constitution.
.The Shield: Constitution Protection Act
A model law restoring neutral, fact-based public education and prohibiting government from compelling belief or devotional practice—crafted to withstand modern Supreme Court scrutiny.
The Constitution was designed to protect liberty by restraining government from prescribing orthodoxy. Whether the belief is religious, political, or ideological, government may not compel citizens to mouth creeds, recite prayers, or pledge allegiance to contested ideas as the price of participation in public life.
The Constitution Protection Act (CPA) ensures that principle applies wherever taxpayer dollars flow. Every government-funded institution — whether a K–12 school, a university, a library, a courthouse, a hospital, a prison, a state office, or a nonprofit funded by grants or contracts — must remain neutral in matters of conscience.
We’ve built the model legislation —
the Shield to protect the people, the Sword to enforce the oath.
We don’t publish it here, but if you are serious about advancing this fight, reach out and we will provide you with a copy.
📧 Accountability2024@icloud.com
🌐 accountabilitymatterstexas.com
☎️ 903-305-0152
Legal Memo — Anticipated Attacks & Defenses (CPA + CSSPA)
I. Government-Speech & Program-Control Defense (CPA)
Claim: Curriculum, training, and services in taxpayer-funded institutions are “government speech,” and the state may condition participation.
Response:
Government may teach, but it may not compel personal affirmation (Barnette; Wooley; Janus; 303 Creative).
CPA preserves content delivery but forbids forced recitation or grading of belief.
Hazelwood permits control of curricular content, but not coercion of private conscience.
II. Establishment Clause & Religious Accommodation (CPA + CSSPA)
Claim: Government may reference religion under “history and tradition” (Kennedy). CPA and CSSPA are hostile to faith.
Response:
Both Acts are pro-neutrality and anti-coercion. They do not bar voluntary private exercise; they bar official compulsion.
Engel and Abington remain controlling: official devotional exercises in taxpayer-funded settings are unconstitutional.
Kennedy confirms the distinction: private religious exercise is protected; government-led devotions are not.
III. Free Exercise / Neutrality vs. Hostility (CPA)
Claim: CPA discriminates against religion by singling it out.
Response:
CPA applies evenhandedly to all belief systems (religious, political, ideological).
It strengthens Free Exercise by ensuring no citizen is coerced into affirming creed.
Neutral, generally applicable laws are upheld (Employment Division v. Smith, though narrowed by Fulton). CPA is neutral and targeted at compulsion, not belief.
IV. Separation of Powers & Oath Enforcement (CSSPA)
Claim: CSSPA intrudes into political questions by disciplining officials for policy choices.
Response:
CSSPA enforces the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which binds all oath-bound officers.
It tracks existing enforcement statutes: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil), 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 (criminal), 18 U.S.C. § 2385 (overthrow advocacy).
Courts already review official actions for constitutional violations — CSSPA simply codifies remedies and affirms that unconstitutional acts are null and void.
V. Overbreadth & Vagueness (CPA + CSSPA)
Claim: Terms like “ideology,” “subversion,” or “devotional exercise” are too vague and chill speech.
Response:
Both Acts define key terms tightly (compelled affirmation, devotional exercise, constitutional subversion).
Safe Harbor clauses ensure objective teaching, private voluntary expression, and neutral enforcement remain untouched.
Vagueness doctrine requires “ordinary understanding,” which is satisfied here.
VI. First Amendment Retaliation / Viewpoint Discrimination
Claim: By barring ideological pledges or grading of belief, the Acts censor government-preferred viewpoints.
Response:
Neither Act bans topics or ideas. Both bar compelled endorsement.
Barnette is clear: the government may not prescribe orthodoxy. Teaching ≠ compelling.
VII. Spending Clause & Grant Conditions (CPA)
Claim: Government can condition funds (spending power) on ideological compliance.
Response:
Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society (2013) struck down compelled ideological pledges as a funding condition.
CPA codifies this rule: public funds cannot be leveraged to force speech or creed.
VIII. Political Question & Justiciability (CSSPA)
Claim: Courts cannot adjudicate “subversion” without intruding on politics.
Response:
Courts already adjudicate constitutional violations under § 1983 and due process/equal protection claims.
CSSPA provides clear standards: substitution of foreign/religious/ideological law, denial of equal protection/due process, or advocacy of overthrow.
Enforcement mirrors long-established federal statutes, narrowing discretion to justiciable issues.
IX. Standing & Remedies (CPA + CSSPA)
Claim: Plaintiffs lack standing; sovereign immunity blocks enforcement.
Response:
CPA: Any student, parent, employee, or participant compelled in a taxpayer-funded program has concrete injury.
CSSPA: Victims of rights deprivation have standing under § 1983; conspiracies or willful denials trigger §§ 241–242.
Sovereign immunity is waived only for prospective relief under Ex parte Young.
Why This Framework is SCOTUS-Proofed
Sword (CSSPA): Enforces the Supremacy Clause, oath obligations, and remedies for subversion. Tracks existing civil and criminal statutes.
Shield (CPA): Neutral, narrow, and precise. Stops compulsion in taxpayer-funded settings without restricting content.
Together: They cover both daily operations (CPA) and structural accountability (CSSPA).
Litigation Plan — CPA + CSSPA
A. Causes of Action (Federal Court)
1. Under the Constitution Protection Act (CPA)
Establishment Clause: Challenge official devotional exercises in taxpayer-funded institutions (e.g., SB 11 mandates, Paxton’s KJV prayer email).
Free Speech / Compelled Speech: Challenge compelled affirmations, ideological pledges, or grading of belief (Barnette; Wooley; Janus; 303 Creative).
Free Exercise: If dissenters are penalized for declining to participate in ideological or religious exercises.
Due Process: Lack of transparency or notice in taxpayer-funded curricula, trainings, or programs.
Spending Clause: Unconstitutional conditions on grants or contracts (Alliance for Open Society).
2. Under the Constitutional Supremacy and Subversion Prevention Act (CSSPA)
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Civil action against oath-bound officials for depriving rights under color of law.
18 U.S.C. § 242: Criminal liability for willful deprivation of rights.
18 U.S.C. § 241: Criminal conspiracy liability for coordinated subversion.
18 U.S.C. § 2385: Extreme advocacy or attempts to overthrow constitutional government.
Supremacy Clause (Article VI): Any official act subordinating the Constitution to foreign, religious, or ideological law is null and void.
B. Defendants & Venue
CPA actions: School districts, universities, state agencies, grant-funded entities, hospitals, prisons — any taxpayer-funded institution.
CSSPA actions: Elected or appointed officials, law enforcement, military officers, and any oath-bound actor engaged in constitutional subversion.
Venue: Federal district courts where injuries occurred; Fifth Circuit on appeal.
C. Evidence Pack (to Build Now)
Official documents: SB 11 text, Paxton’s KJV prayer email, training decks, grant contracts, lesson plans.
Records: Student grading rubrics, disciplinary actions tied to belief, board meeting minutes, internal agency communications.
Affidavits & Testimony: Students, parents, employees, or citizens penalized for dissent.
Public records: Campaign speeches, official statements, policy papers showing substitution of creed or ideology for constitutional standards.
D. Remedies Sought
Declaratory Judgment: Courts declare compulsion and subversion unconstitutional.
Injunctions: Prevent agencies and officials from enforcing unconstitutional mandates.
Void Acts: Under CSSPA, unconstitutional official acts declared null and void.
Removal/Discipline: Officials engaged in proven subversion subject to removal or discharge.
Attorneys’ Fees: Fee-shifting provisions to incentivize enforcement.
E. Messaging & Public Record
Position CPA as the shield: protecting citizens from compelled belief in taxpayer-funded institutions.
Position CSSPA as the sword: holding oath-bound officials personally accountable for subversion.
Emphasize neutrality, not hostility: both Acts protect private belief and conscience, while restraining official coercion.
Publish legislative drafts, resolutions, and litigation plans openly to demonstrate transparency and seriousness.
Strategic Goal
By filing challenges under both Acts, we:
Protect individual citizens in daily life (CPA).
Hold oath-bound officials accountable for structural subversion (CSSPA).
Create the factual and legal record needed to carry these cases through the Fifth Circuit and into the Supreme Court, where the core question will be: