It’s a sad reality. Sometimes life can be sufficiently convoluted as to make it difficult to come up with the time to write much of anything meaningful.

This has been true for me in the recent past—right up to the present moment.

I’ve had ideas rattling around in this pea-sized brain for a while now, but haven’t had the time to act upon those concepts.

At present, I (briefly) have time, inclination, and something I think it important to discuss, so here goes!

A great deal has been made recently about the idea of “birthright citizenship”—a thing with which you should be aware I do not agree.

Frankly, the suggestion that the Constitutional amendment that supposedly “covers” this idea was even designed for the present moment is enough of a question as to make it unreasonable to assume it applies to the modern day.

Put simply, it appears to have been put in place to make it so the children of slaves in the United States were (rightly, in my view) granted franchise in that country.

Distinctions were made both in that amendment, and in subsequent discussions of it, that seem to me at least, to make it quite clear it wasn’t meant for folks who land in the country with the intent of claiming citizenship for their children because they were born here of foreign parents not subject to its jurisdiction.

That’s a matter for another day. When I discuss it—and I hope so to do—I’ll likely focus primarily on the idea of being under U.S. “jurisdiction,” and what that was almost certainly intended to mean.

For the moment though, I’d like to discuss an idea that folks have floated with regard to the concept of jurisdictional purview.

The concept is that of allegiance.

A certain individual currently in a high position in the Judicial branch of the federal government has spoken about things more or less in this way.

She says as far as I’m able to tell—paraphrasing here—that were I to take a quick jaunt to Japan, and to steal the wallet of a local, I would find myself “temporarily allegiant to” that country.

Her argument seems to be that because I’m subject to its laws as a result of my being in their country, I owe it allegiance.

Here would be our point of divergence.

How do I count the individual to be errant? Actually, it’s not particularly complicated.

It’s a matter of perspective.

You see, others may have jurisdiction over me, or my actions, statements, and behaviors. This does not mean I either owe, or give, them allegiance.

Put another way, jurisdiction is about what a given entity may do to me. Conversely, allegiance is what I am willing, and accordingly do, give or do for, a particular body.

Anybody having been to a U.S. school in the distant past, remembers the Pledge of Allegiance.

To wit: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I ask you to note the couching of this pledge. It begins with “I”. That’s no accident.

You see, a state may “demand” allegiance in order to count me in certain status. What it cannot do, is force me to give it.

The simple reality is, I can give allegiance, but though it may be expected of me, it is not something another “has over” me.

Rather, it is jurisdiction that can be claimed—whether or not I accept it.

Can a country, state, county, city, or other entity, “pledge allegiance,” or actually practice it? They certainly can.

Though that’s true, they cannot make me do so.

The idea that allegiance can even be “forced” is a bad, and very bizarre one.

Allegiance is about one choosing loyalty to a given entity and the concepts, precepts, and ideas that it embodies.

Stepping back however, there’s a “root” to what I’m saying here, that shows a way in which humanity has largely fallen as time has progressed (literally from the time of my birth just over sixty years hence).

That basis is a fundamental misunderstanding, and “mis-definition” of words and terms.

The fact that individuals in the highest court in the country don’t comprehend what I’ve just described, makes it plain we’ve lost some precious and important abilities as time has wended forward.

Imagine telling someone, “You have allegiance to me, or my country,” rather than asking them whether or not they have such allegiance. Does this seem reasonable to you?

It’s my hope you answer the aforstated question firmly in the negative.

Again, it would be totally acceptable (even if potentially incorrect) to say, “I have jurisdiction over you, or this matter.”

I’ve prattled on many times about a concept I have come to call “lingual imprecision.”

The simple expression of what I contend is this. When people fail to understand, or worse yet, intentionally redefine language, so that it no longer means to those persons what it ought, the expressions commonly used become less and less effective at conveying meaning.

Putting things in a proverbial nutshell, without a common “lexicon” and the general understanding what the terms in it mean, we are ultimately lost.

You have the right to disagree with both my general premise, and how it relates specifically to allegiance. Unless we’re able to come to a common understanding though, it makes little difference what either of us thinks.

If we cannot come together sufficiently well to hash out some basic terms, with solid recognition of their underlying concepts, we lose one of the most basic and important abilities. If you’re unclear, that would be the ability to communicate with efficacy.

I hope you can see how important this is. If not, perhaps it’s time to hang it up—to call it a day.

As has been my custom in these little rants, I wish you the best of days, and hope for the general health and well being of you, and yours.