The 5th amendment originally only applied to the Federal Government, and neither imposed any legislation on eminent domain nor restricted the State's right to do whatever it pleased on the matter. The 14th amendment, in its turn, was never designed to take away any of the State's rights. So the question is, can the Federal Government stop the State from having broader or less broad eminent domain laws, provided that due compensation and due process is always kept? The answer is no.
I really don’t understand how Kelo and what Trump tried are different.
In Kelo the local government tried (and succeeded) to take land from one private entity and give it to another (for the purposes of “development”)
In the Atlantic City case, the local government tried (and failed) to take property from one private entity and give it to another (again for the purposes of development or one could say in this case redevelopment).
How are they different, other than the fact that the local government in AC failed in their quest?
If they aren’t different in substance, then I really fail to see how Trump apologists can say they were against what happened in Kelo but yet support what (almost) happened in AC!
Maybe I should really ask, “Do you support the Kelo decision?”