This may have been originally true, but the general interpretation has changed a bit in the past couple centuries as the Supreme Court has in general expanded interpretation of the constitution. For example, non-white non-landowners are allowed to vote (although it did take an amendment for women to get the franchise).
I don't think you have any notion what an authoritarian central government actually is. The stuff you are complaining about are laws created by elected representatives who are put into place by the people. If you don't like the laws, vote the representatives out.
Now, mind you that you can make a good argument that the representatives are not effectively representing the people because they are instead driven by money, but that's not the argument you're making.
No, I don't. But I don't think that just because the internet is not mentioned in the constitution, the government shouldn't regulate or finance parts of it. The constitution was specifically made somewhat open-ended because the world changes. This is a good thing.
Common law extends it as well as amendments. You may not like the common law (and I certainly don't like a lot of it), but you can't just ignore it.
You might try going to a doctor sometime and just seeing how bad the system really is. Now, it's true that the new law doesn't address some of the most serious problems (for example, it's very expensive to become a doctor, and so there is a shortage of doctors, especially in lower-paying fields like primary care... and because there is a shortage of doctors, organizations are less apt to fire incompetent ones). And it doesn't address the ballooning cost of health care. But the free market has failed to do so, and it seems reasonable for the government to step in when the free market has not worked.
You may not feel this way. If so, feel free to vote. It's a pretty powerful thing, the vote.
--scott