Unclear to me is the confusion regarding the 14th Amendment and how it may or may not be relevant.
The argument that the issue should be left to the voters is really without merit. The US Constitution places qualifications on who can be president. You must be at least 35 years old, natural born, not have served more than 6 years and 1 day as president already and not engaged in an insurrection, or provided comfort and aid insurrectionists, against the United States, while serving as an officer of the United States.
If you are okay with simply pushing the 14th Amendment aside, then what makes the other qualifications enforceable? There really is no Constitutional question here for the US Supreme Court to resolve–especially for the conservative majority who likes to lean into the plain text and framer’s intent.
I guess they could try to find a way to say the president is not an officer of the United States, but that really does not seem logical. Like any other person who serves under Article 1, 2 or 3, he/she swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution and part of the oath that a president swears even says, “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States”, which pretty clearly means the president is an officer.