So, you suffer from Celiac's Disease?

That is what the person who came up with the idea for this product wanted you to do...and is why I will never purchase it.

Steamboat Willy is approximately 50 years more recent than "Happy Birthday". The song Happy Birthday was first published in 1912, but the evidence suggests that it had been around since sometime in the 1880s, or earlier. The "copyright" on the song is based on its publication in 1935, yet that publication was a copy of what was published in 1912.

The first rule of firearm safety: all guns are loaded.

You are missing the part where they had to install their malicious software on the computer in question in order to accomplish this hack.

OK, you are right. You only need the ability to insert your malicious code onto something that will be taken to the computer and set up to install. If you have the ability to both get your software installed on the computer and the ability to monitor its electromagnetic output, you can access the data on that computer. Guess what, I would have told you ten years ago that if you have the ability to get your software installed on a computer, you have the ability to access the data on said computer.

So, this still requires physical access to the computer. I certainly hope that no one thought that it was possible to prevent someone with physical access to a computer from extracting data from said computer. You can make it difficult for them to do it, but not impossible.

The Constitution was written to limit what the federal government was allowed to do. Those limits were supposed to apply even if the majority of the people wished otherwise. There is a provision in the Constitution for changing those limits if a sufficiently large percentage of the population so desires, but barring that being done those limits were intended to continue.
So, the federal government does not have the authority to do whatever is supported by the democratically expressed will of the people. It only has the authority to do those things the Constitution gives it the authority to do, with the caveat that even there it only has the authority to do them according to the democratically expressed will of the people.

I am sorry, but the Supreme Court just ruled, "Yes, the law explicitly states this, but we do not like the consequences of that so we are going to say it does not mean what it says. No, there is no place in the law where it actually says what we would like it to say, but we are going to say it says it anyway."

I am sorry, but the American Republic as designed by the men who wrote the Constitution is over. We no longer have a government which considers itself bound by that Constitution. We no longer have a government of laws. Which rules apply depend on the political power of the individual involved, not on what the law says.

So, what you are saying is that the Framers of the Constitution placed a provision in it which they knew meant nothing?
In the case of the ACA, the bill passed out of the Senate contained NONE of the language which was in the bill passed out of the House which it supposedly amended...not only that but it did not even contain any language relating to what the House bill was about.
You are correct that I do not like how our system works...and neither would the men who wrote the Constitution, nor would the men who ratified the Constitution in the 13 states. If they imagined that it would be interpreted as it currently is, they would not have ratified it.

Actually, there is a good way. The bill that originates in the House has to actually contain provisions for raising revenue AND there has to be some resemblance between what the bill passed by the Senate says and the one originally passed by the House.

Of course, it would be even easier if the people in Congress actually took their oath of office seriously to support and defend the Constitution.
Personally, I would like to see every bill contain a reference to where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to enact the legislation in question.

No, the problem comes from the fact that the U.S. government no longer considers itself bound to follow the Constitution. The rest of your post indicates what causes this problem. The legitimacy of the various parts of the U.S. government to do ANYTHING is supposed to come from the U.S. Constitution, not from "democratic legitimacy". The various states yielded their sovereignty to the federal government under the understanding that the federal government would be constrained by the Constitution, not free to do anything which was not opposed by the democratically expressed will of the people..

You are mistaken. The judicial system IS working as designed. It is important to remember that every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results which it delivers.
I think what you meant is that the judicial system is no longer working as ORIGINALLY designed, which is entirely correct. Now to some degree that was necessary. We, as a people, no longer desire some of the results which the original system was designed to produce (such as protecting slavery). However, we have allowed a class of people (lawyers) to change the system so as to favor members of that class, which was not necessary and is contrary to the interests of everyone else.

The problem with that logic is that, if it is Constitutionally valid, the Constitutional provision requiring tax laws to originate in the House is meaningless. If that provisions is meaningless, why did the Framers include it?