Being Duly Sworn Says That: Fill & Download for Free

It's not unconstitutional for a President to say, on their deathbed, “Please don't pass the Presidency to my VP; instead, give it to my third cousin twice removed's college roommate's beautician.” Free speech, and all that.But no one would follow those instructions. The President would croak and the VP would be duly sworn in at the first opportunity.If someone did try to follow the instructions, I suppose it would provoke a confrontation between the people following the rules laid out in the Constitution, and the people trying to break them. The Secret Service would likely get involved. The odds of them taking the rule-breakers' side are pretty slim.

First—probably not.For instance, Pam Bondi, mentioned in the article, was an elected Attorney General of Florida, and the Florida State Constitution forbids any person from holding two elected offices at once.OK, fine—at most, this would mean she’d have to be stripped of her AG post by Florida courts.It could not mean that she could be prohibited from being an Elector or casting a valid electoral vote—because the U.S. Constitution is supreme over all State constitutions, so no State constitution could prevent someone from holding a federal constitutional office for which he or she otherwise qualifies.And even if she continued to hold her AG post, and even if that were acknowledged as a flagrant violation of Florida law, it would still not invalidate her status as an Elector—it would only perhaps make her actions as Attorney General illegitimate.Now, it is certainly true that her election as an Elector could have been challenged in Florida to prevent her from being certified as an Elector in the first place—the Constitution gives States extraordinarily broad leeway in deciding how Electors will be selected.But once she was certified as an Elector and sworn in, she became a federal office-holder, and State law cannot terminate the term of a duly-sworn federal office-holder even if her election was a violation of State law (or even federal law, really).This applies to very likely all 34 alleged “dual-office violations” and also to all 16 “congressional district violations” (i.e., the State has a law requiring an Elector to live in the district they’ll represent, and they allegedly didn’t).State laws absolutely can prevent certain people from becoming Electors. But the time to challenge that is before they are certified by the State authorities and sworn in. State law cannot retroactively invalidate the acts of a duly-sworn federal office-holder.Second… I’m not sure it matters.Donald Trump won by over seventy electoral votes, so even invalidating fifty of them wouldn’t have changed the outcome.Or rather, it would have prevented him from having an outright majority, and kicked the election to the House—but the Twelfth Amendment provides that the House can only choose from among the top three electoral vote-getters, and that they vote by State delegation, not by individual.Trump won thirty States to Clinton’s twenty, and there’s frankly no way that five or more Red State delegations were going to flip to Clinton (there’s also no chance that they would have elected Colin Powell—the third-place electoral vote-getter who wasn’t even a willing candidate).And saying “at least” fifty is really just a cop-out. It invites the reader to consider the fifty that were actually found and (allegedly) proved by evidence and then to assume that there must be others, without any evidence that there actually are.Original Question:“Is it true that at least 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated as Electoral College members?”

Just a wild guess from the UK. Because he lost the November election, and Joe Biden was duly sworn in as President on Jan 20?