[Pontiac]

The difference between men and women in relation to the birth process is a real one, and the principle of equal protection does not forbid Congress to address the problem at hand in a manner specific to each gender.

I would argue that it takes more than an act of congress or a court decision to change the Constitution.

At the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution citizenship was passed from the father to his children.

Changing the Constitution from what the framers intended to what the popular opinion of the day happens to be still requires that the processes of Article 5 be followed. Congress alone nor the Courts have the power to alter the Constitution.

Were it otherwise the Constitution would be meaningless.

[Cboldt]

-- At the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution citizenship was passed from the father to his children. --

Not exactly, or not the only criteria, that's for sure. The words of the constitution and the entire body of US case law assigns 100% or birth abroad as aliens under the constitution, naturalized as Congress sees fit. The scope of that "Congress sees fit" is highly variable over the years. Nothing "natural" about it.

As far as amendment being necessary to change the constitution, that is demonstrably false. The government isn't bound by the constitution, unless you are a Pollyanna. The NBC clause is long dead. There is no need to amend it, just keep ignoring it.

The constitution IS meaningless - or rather, it means whatever the government gets away with and SCOTUS either ignores or endorses.

One can review the case law for academic curiosity purposes - or if money or some other thing of value hangs in the balance, to facilitate composing arguments. But the decisions are a figment of whatever 5 justices ate for breakfast. The US is a banana republic, in every sense.