Everything the government touches goes to shit. They WILL ALWAYS abuse the power they obtain.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/americas-top-spy-james-clapper-mad...
https://apnews.com/article/business-33a88feb083ea35515de3c73...
Fuck these liars.
Perhaps take a look at the Unix philosophy of command line tool design. Do one thing, do it well.
While it’s correct that the statutory language predominates in a question of construction, the first place that anyone would look to make an argument about how a statute should be interpreted is, in the absence of case law, to the legislative history of the bill including what the sponsors said their intent was at the time of the bill.
Now, you are right insofar as a law that says “thou shalt not kill” is probably not going to get to the point where we are arguing about ambiguity. But to say the opinions of the lawmakers are not relevant is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
However, my indisputable point remains and always will: the opinion of the lawmaker is not irrelevant. You may be able to point to a person to whom it is not relevant, and you may be able to argue about what relevant means (hint FRCP 401; and “relevance is a low bar”), and you may even dispute whether this interview counts as legislative history, but you will not be able to successfully dispute the relevance of legislative history.