They can't "override" s constitutional amendment without historic precidence. Citizenship by birth is unquestioned in this country and I can't think of any situation where it has been revoked, waived by an individual maybe but never revoked. There are likely situations before the 14th amendment was added were the federal government assumed birthright citizenship was legal. So this argument that it's a flawed amendment as it was enacted because ex slaves needed protection is weak. The wording was absolute knowing that it had precedence and needed to be indisputable. The 2nd amendment on the other hand was PURPOSELY ambiguous by referring to ".....a well organized militia" even though military service was to be voluntary. Both issues of armed service and gun ownership were vigorously debated even slated to be included in other amendments or another document (the bill of rights eventually?) or by states before they decided on the wording of the 2nd amendment as compromise. Yet it's just accepted since then that the goal was ONLY to protect private gun ownership. So, if there were any doubt concerning the absolute meaning of the 14th amendment it would have been worded different...