E.J. Dionne wrote an editorial in The Washington Post explaining why he changed his mind about this issue and now believes the Supreme Court should rule that Trump should be removed from the ballot. His editorial was basically an anlaysis of the amicus brief filed by the four historians who cited numerous communications from those who DRAFTED the Fourteenth Amendment that explicitly stated the language of Section Three was explicitly intended to include precluding oath-breakers from become President as well.

He ended his commentary with this:

The biggest paradox of all: Throwing Trump off the ballot would seem, on its face, the opposite of democracy. Yet the whole point of Section 3 is to protect constitutional democracy from anyone who has already tried to destroy it. If its provisions don’t apply to Trump, they don’t apply to anyone. The court would not be disqualifying him. He disqualified himself.

Another point Dionne makes is that in a climate where "states' rights" generates different political inclinations on a per-issue bases, the decision by one state to prohibit the appearance of a candidate would appear to have undue influence on the "choice" of other states to support a candidate for a national office. Well? That's tough. "States' rights" cuts both ways. DOZENS of Republican Congressional members expressed ZERO concern about REJECTING the legitimate electoral votes of more than a HANDFUL of states because their preferred candidate didn't win those states. And wasn't it strange how, in a climate where DOZENS of states changed election laws to encourage participation amid concerns of COVID that the only states in which fraud was alleged were those that Trump lost? Ain't that the damndest thing?

You can read the whole editorial here: washingtonpost.com - Trump ballot disqualified amendment

WTH