>It was obvious from the length of the act alone that even Congressional staffers couldn't have read it carefully between the time of submission and the time it passed.

This is a little off topic, but I always see this trotted out when people talk about big laws (like Obamacare, PATRIOT Act, etc) and it's not really true. Lawmakers usually work with and read a "normal language" version of laws that then gets transformed into a stricter legal version by staffers and experts. They will look at the actual legal version of the law if they care about a specific rule or section, but they usually don't need to.

It is an incorrect characterization when referring to the Affordable Care Act, as that went through so many revisions and debate over such a long period, that anyone who did not read it has zero excuse (including the public who allows itself to be misinformed about its contents). But it's not quite unfair wrt the PATRIOT Act. There was widespread reporting, complaining, and outright indignation that the PATRIOT Act was never read by a majority of congresspersons who voted for it. It was so massive, that there was little time to actually read the legal language overnight.

Of course, I expect my lawmakers to actually read the legal language.

The point is more that for most lawmakers there's not really a need to read all of the nitty gritty legal language. If you're a House Rep from Kansas who's core issue is corn subsidies, reading all of the PATRIOT Act isn't really going to do you much good. Instead, you read the summaries and listen to the opinion of the experts in your party who have read the whole act.

It's important too to note that this isn't a "big law" or even an American thing. Virtually all bills of any substance work this way and it's pretty much standard practice in most countries.

That being said, I'm not defending the PATRIOT Act. I just think the argument that not enough people read it is weak, especially considering all the real arguments you can make that actually attack the substance of the act.

You make some decent points. However, I'm still going to counter that 'the argument that not enough people read it'--i.e., proposed laws--is strong, not weak.

The point is that for all lawmakers, there is both a need and sworn obligation, in addition to national expectation, that they read all the nitty gritty legal language they are voting on, by which all Americans are bound to abide.

That's what lawmakers are there for--to know what in the hell they are passing as laws. If they can't be bothered to do their job--which, at the national level, goes far beyond just securing corn subsidies, because they're voting on legislation that touches on all Americans--then fuck 'em. Throw the bastards out on their asses, and send them back to the cornfields.