In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause permits a city or state to take private land from one private party and transfer ownership of that land to another private party if doing so furthers economic
development. That is, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the term "public use" in the takings clause to include "public purpose."
Suppose that the federal government wished to prevent such takings by states and municipalities in the future. Discuss what
legislation Congress could enact to do so. Discuss the potential basis for such power.
In the context of the scenario, discuss how such actions by the federal government would promote or interfere with principles of
federalism, and discuss the potential constitutionality of such actions.