The challenge of honoring the protections of the Constitution is balancing the interests of the individual vs the public good.

Answer 1

I agree about Kelo but not your general drift of the argument. Nothing justifies taking a right from an individual BUT every individual is part of many other groups: family, neighborhood, social groups, Church, etc

So what is good for the family, eg the education of children, might be a financial burden on those who must pay for it but they are being made to live up to what being a citizen means. Same with military service and jury duty etc.

If I understand the question rightly, it envisions someone having a right like Freedom of Religion or of Assembly being lost because of some public necessity. So due to Covid orders were given to suspend religious services. That is clearly a violation of a right and no public good demands it. The public good deals with what is called better the common good and all those from the family up to the State are private goods ultimately.

Answer 2

The Bill of Rights (a major part of the Constitution) is designed to protect the minority from the majority

giving individual rights full priority over the "public good" if there's a conflict. The "public good" is just a transitory majority, while individual rights are God given, superceding human transitory views. We are "endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights" See the Declaration of Independence. But if you're an atheist just substitute "nature" for the Deity. Natural rights supercede the right of the majority. It's the American Way, borrowed from the Enlightenment in Europe. And the British Magna Carte. Read or watch "Lord of the Flies"

The "balancing act" is a circus act with clowns pretending they care about anyone but themselves. and clowns competing to be the Circus Ring Master.

The Supreme Court lost sight of this when they ruled the government can take private property for the "public interest" when the public interest was to get more taxes from a commercial use of the private property. Voters tried to take that Supreme Court Justice's own property in the "public interest" Individual rights surpassed by the public good or interest is just the Soviet Union, China, North Korea. Sadly the voters didn't succeed.

see the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London 545 US 469 (2005) Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, when he was seemingly senile. longest serving Justice, or close to it. but then Justices don't really write any rulings. They just sign off on whatever their law clerks come up with. So blame the law clerks. straight out of top notch law schools ready to twist the law into whatever pretzel their Justice seems to want in their more lucid moments. A cynical view, but more realistic than the usual idealistic things that ignore reality..