To those that support Kelo, I strongly disagree that it was the correct decision based on the Fifth Amendment. The Court has effectively wiped out the Public Use Clause with its overly broad interpretation of government taking authority. The idea that the Constitution permits takings for the sake of economic development is a broad and dangerous expansion of power. As Justice O'Connor's dissent notes, the distinction between private and public use is of vital importance. I think her dissent would have been the proper result in the case, keeping in line with a more appropriate interpretation of what "public use" actual means. The Court's decision does not take seriously the "public use" limitation on eminent domain.
Two things:
-There is no public use clause. "Public use" is just explaining the type of situation where just compensation is going to be required. Amendment doesn't say: Private property may only be taken for a public use, but not a private use.
-There's no way for a judge to make a clear line between what's a private and public purpose. That's inherently a political decision. There may be some nightmare scenario with eminent domain but, it's either going to be averted by the just compensation requirement or perhaps substantive due process or some rational basis challenge.