In his letter, Thomas Winn requests an explanation as to why President Barack Obama’s Iran treaty does not require approval by two-thirds of the Senate, as mandated by Article 2, section 2 of our Constitution.

The explanation lies in Obama’s abuse of language to achieve his goal. His Iran treaty is not a “treaty”; it is called an “agreement,” which does not require Senate approval because “agreements” are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Such abuses of language have become commonplace. “Marriage” is, and has been, the union of one man and one woman. Suddenly, our Constitution provides that marriage is the union of any two, or possibly more people.

“Abortion” is the destruction of a baby in the mother’s womb. It has been redefined to mean the destruction of a group of cells growing in the womb. (This is to be distinguished from the destruction of the eggs of certain protected species, which is punished by fine or imprisonment.)

This results from the Supreme Court’s finding that the language of the Constitution should contain the word “privacy.”

Border enforcement is ignored due to Obama’s perverted version of the concept of “prosecutorial discretion.”

Sanctuary cities are illegal under federal law; however, the use of the word “sanctuary” implies protection from evil. Therefore, the illegality should be ignored.

As explained by Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Alice responds, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

Richard Regan

retired attorney