Okay, let's cut the crap.
Speaking as a knowledgable lawyer (It's not my specialty, but I studied it intensely in the past with experts :P), they are in fact, quite difficult to interpret.
This is even empirically true:
Different federal appeals courts (which have panels of knowledgable judges) have come to different conclusions about the scope, reach, and interpretation of different parts of the law.
I'm not sure what your evidence is to the contrary.
I would only point out that it's actually both: Not only are they unclear, even if they were clarified but still prohibited roughly the same breadth of things with the same extraordinary penalties, we still should not like them. A law that plausibly imposes the same (felony) penalty for using one's brother's laptop without permission as for breaking into a military intelligence satellite to steal classified materials is a defective law in need of serious reform.
This is even empirically true: Different federal appeals courts (which have panels of knowledgable judges) have come to different conclusions about the scope, reach, and interpretation of different parts of the law.
I'm not sure what your evidence is to the contrary.