> I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today.

Then it's the job of the people who run Congress to fix that. Which requires them to know what the rules currently are, so they can figure out how to fix them.

> assuming that the rules are simple

I made no such assumption.

> and the staffers are inept is unwarranted.

I didn't assume the staffers are inept; I concluded it from their observed behavior. I don't see what else I could conclude from the fact that they don't know the rules that it's their job to know.

> same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent.

Not off the top of their head, but being able to look them up without having to depend on someone on Twitter, yes. Similarly, the people who run Congress should be able to find this information themselves; they shouldn't have to depend on someone on Twitter to do it.

> every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages

Not all of them, because no software engineer uses all of them. But for the ones you do use, yes, you should have a good working knowledge of their spec, and should be able to look up details when you need to, and not depend on someone on Twitter (or Stack Overflow, for that matter) to do it.

If you're at the stage where you're having to ask people on the Internet about such things, you aren't yet a software engineer. You're just an aspiring one. The people who run Congress are not "aspiring" to that job. They have it. Big difference.

Apparently you have much lower standards than I do for what people are supposed to know as part of their jobs. At least when those jobs are at the level of power and influence of Congress and its staffers. Sure, if you're just writing software for yourself or for a small company, you can get away with asking questions on Stack Overflow a lot. If you're just doing structural calculations for a doll house for your kid to play with, you don't need a PE license.

But we're not talking about that kind of job here. We're talking about the US Congress, the legislative body of the most powerful country in the world. You say the US Congress is not a "common" institution, and indeed it's not: our standards for what its members and staffers should know should be higher than they would be for a "common" institution. If your common sense isn't telling you that, I don't know what else to say: clearly you and I live on different planets if that's the case.

> you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex.

I have made no such claim. I am claiming that the work of that 20-year-old should be being done by Congress and its staffers. That's their job. The fact that the work required is "deep and complex" does not excuse Congress and its staffers from doing it.

> the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant.

Again, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that the 20-year-old is not a "savant". I'm saying that the fact that Congress and its staffers are calling him one means that they are not doing their jobs. If they were doing their jobs, their response to him would be something like "Wow, you have a level of knowledge of this stuff pretty close to ours." Not "Hey, can we ask you questions because we can't be bothered to do our jobs ourselves?"