[OneWingedShark]

By Tenth Amendment standards, Kelo was correctly decided, even though the New London assertion of an eminent domain taking was itself an abomination. The result was that some states instituted MORE stringent property rights protections than the Fifth Amendment offers, while others continue on the corrupt path to ruin. The result of the ruling is that Natural Law will assure the outcome, which is a wise course in most instances of offering the temptation to centralize enforcement powers.

Disagreed very much; the use of eminent domain in the fifth says that it's for public use — handing over the seized property to a private development company for commercial [IIRC] development is not public use.

[Carry_Okie]

Disagreed very much; the use of eminent domain in the fifth says that it's "for public use" —

Only if you incorporate the Fifth Amendment under the 14th.

There is a long history of precedent of eminent domain takings for private benefit by the states going back to the early days of railroads and barge companies. In fact, Abraham Lincoln made his political name by rigging such deals, a corporate RINO from the get-go if you will.

So, yes the taking by New London for a private entity was an abomination. As to whether it should fall under the purvey of the Federal government to enforce the Fifth Amendment against the states, please consider this article. I am not sure you have considered the unintended consequences of such a preference.