The Constitution is not (only) a legal document
The basic orientation of elected officials should be to use as little force on the people under your authority as possible.
Sometimes simple is better. We do not need an array of details, we need to be committed to a simple premise and seek to honor that premise. That is the case with our the Constitution’s limits on government power, both in the Bill of Rights and in the Fourteenth Amendment’s application of those limitations on government power to the states.
Far too often, when there is a question about whether the government has violated someone’s rights, pundits and commentators search through case law to explain that the government did have the authority do to this and the Constitutional limits on government power do not apply to this particular action. But the orientation is totally wrong.
The basic orientation of every government official should be this, with everything they do: Is my proposed policy consistent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights and other freedoms protected by the Constitution? Even if it is technically “legal,” does this restriction or regulation protect or infringe on the liberty of my constituents? Am I expanding government power at the expense of the people under my authority? Is there another way to accomplish my goal without giving more power to the government?
This can be applied to a wide variety of issues. This includes the size of political yard signs, restrictions on what homes can be built and where, and when law enforcement may enter a home or business. The basic orientation should be to use as little force on the people under your authority as possible. Your basic orientation should be to carefully guard the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights rather than looking for exceptions for why this particular restriction is legal or not. The Constitution should be read not only as a legal document, but as a basic set of principles that civil magistrates should support.
So for rulers at the federal, state and local level, I urge you to do this: Forget about case law. Forget about precedent. Forget about the Supreme Court. Go back to the text of the Constitution and ask yourself if you are being faithful to the text and the spirit of the law. If you have to search extra sources for why you are allowed to do this or that thing that would be prohibited by the Constitution, either do not do it at all or find a less intrusive way to accomplish your policy goals, such as incentives or public persuasion. Stop looking for ways to expand your power in a way that is opposed to a clear, common-sense reading of the text. Above all else, protect the liberty of those under your authority.