What kind of person argues that the 14th Amendment changed the qualifications for POTUS?
The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the unique qualifications laid out in the Constitution for POTUS.
Are you ready to admit that now?
It may or may not have changed them, depending on what you believe the rules were at the time the Constitution was ratified. But given that the rule was not expressly defined, and therefore left ambuguous at best, I think the 14th cleared up any ambiguity under a plain textual reading of the statute.
I've been practicing law for nearly 20 years, and am quite successful at it. I've argued cases based on interpretations of the common law, statutory law, and constitutional law at both the state and federal level. I'm a long-time member of the Federalist Society, and follow the same general textualist approach to construction as someone like Scalia, valuing the plain, ordinary meanings of words over unexpressed, ideosyncratic interpretations argued after the fact or that weren't clearly accepted among all ratifying agents. And I share in particular his mistrust of much of what is considered to be "legislative history."
Now, I certainly don't expect you to find any of that remotely convincing or impressive. I mean, why should you care about any of that? I mention it only to emphasize the reverse proposition -- why would you expect me to be even remotely convinced by you? You're making the exact kind of highly selective selective "legislative history" arguments I routinely laugh at when made by liberals trying to twist the text of the document. You don't like the textualist approach -- fine. But I'm hardly going to reverse my entire thinking about constitutional interpretation based on anything you've said, no matter whether or not it leads to a result I might otherwise prefer.