>Yes but in considerations of legality, courts have often held that what is put into law is the intention of the law makers and not simply a set of words.
I would love to see that applied to the Patriot Act: It's well known that the large majority of Congress didn't read it before passing it, so their intent was clearly to pass generic anti-terrorism legislation rather than any of the unknown-to-them specific text of USA PATRIOT. And, of course, without any specific text you would expect the law to be found unconstitutionally vague.
That should also have the gleeful side effect of setting the precedent that members of Congress have to read and understand legislation before passing it or the law in question is unconstitutional.
On the other, ironic, hand, then, the court might then somewhat rightful hold that congress' intention was "do whatever the heck you want and then lie and mislead us about it". And low and behold...
I would love to see that applied to the Patriot Act: It's well known that the large majority of Congress didn't read it before passing it, so their intent was clearly to pass generic anti-terrorism legislation rather than any of the unknown-to-them specific text of USA PATRIOT. And, of course, without any specific text you would expect the law to be found unconstitutionally vague.
That should also have the gleeful side effect of setting the precedent that members of Congress have to read and understand legislation before passing it or the law in question is unconstitutional.