Under that logic, why have rules at all? Let's just give the FTC the power to do anything it wants with no oversight and trust that they won't abuse that power in any way. It would certainly make it easier for them to do the things we want them to do, and after all, the FTC has no history of abusing the powers it never previously had.
Law is not code, law is law, and our legal system is based on the idea that by default the government can't do things, we specifically allow things if and only if we want the government to actually be allowed to do those things, and we limit what we allow as narrowly as possible while still enabling the goal to be accomplished. There is a long history of overly broad laws being applied in obviously unintended ways, with countless examples of horrific consequences, which is why we set up our legal system this way. We know that relying on reasonable interpretation is a bad practice that should be avoided as much as possible. It is laughable to dismiss such concerns as being rooted in a lack of understanding of how the law works, indeed I would describe anyone who does not have such concerns as naïve at best.
> We know that relying on reasonable interpretation is a bad practice that should be avoided as much as possible.
I have some bad news for you about the last couple hundred years or so of how the US legal system works, especially in but not exclusive to the aspects of case law and judicial review.
For future reference, the convenient shorthand for your position here is: "Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided."
Law is not code. They don't work the same. The longer you confuse them, the more confused you'll be.