I'm quite sure they will say so.

"The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take appropriate actions to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces, based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems. "

"when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes."
- The U.S. Patriot Act (2002)

These are some of the most terrifying quotes of legislation I have ever had the displeaure to read. It also happens to be a great example of one of the major flaws in the American voting system: ambiguity.

This idea of using ambiguous statements to allow wiggleroom within documents that govern our lives is absolutely horrid.

The text above allows for the government to record the private conversations of American citizens.

It kind of reminds me of V for Vendetta, in the aspect of extreme amounts of govermental interference, especially with the idea of phone monitoring.

Although that is the the basis of what is quoted, most people wouldn't be able to intereperet it that way, and they won't ever say it that way. It couldn't say that and be approved by the public, so legislators used clouded text in order to pass legislation.

This practice is done in order to create confusion and misunderstanding within questionable legislation for those who take the time to read what they are voting on.

It seems, though, that this may be an outdated and unneeded practice. It seems that now, we are able to use direct language, however atrocious it may be.

The Florida Constitutional Amendment 2 says:

"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

That's a pretty direct, not to mention discriminatory, statement. Even that, though, is misleading. Those pushing this legislation made it an issue about gay marriage, which won them votes. What they failed to metntion was that Amendment 2 would take away rights from more straight, civally unionized couples than gay couples, at about a three-to-one ratio.

This is a great segway to the idea of changing out voting system. The passing of such horrible excuses for care of our country are a sure sign of a need for change.

An idea I have heard, and happen to think is grand, is the idea of eliminating the voting age and imposing a competency test. The test would be different for each piece of legislation, just a simple questionaire to see if you understand what it is you are voting on, but uniform for every person.

It would eliminate the problem of bad legislation through the simple fact that the reason said legislation is passed is because people don't take the time to read it. If they don't read it, they won't be able to vote on it.

Eliminating th eage limitation for voting is another thing I think must be done, but only in concert with something such as a competency test.

Throughout my entire time in high school, I was angered by the fact that I couldn't vote, simply because I know more about who and what was on the ballot than most people who were of legal voting age that I spoke to. The same could be said about the majority of my friends.

If you know what the issues are, and understand them, you should be able to vote. If you don't, you shouldn't. It's a very simple process.

Logan Hartwig