A key problem running through takings clause cases concerns the question of what constitutes a public use. This question, along with the other key issue of what is a taking in the first place, is discussed extensively in Chapter 11 of the Epstein and Walker textbook. Kelo v. City of New London (2005), printed in Chapter 11, is one of the more controversial Supreme Court decisions dealing with property rights relating to the public use problem. Justice Stevens' opinion of the court in this highly divided (5-4) decision, along with the dissents written by O'Connor and Thomas, provide alternative perspective on how to balance eminent domain power against private property rights.

present a paper, discussing which side of the issue raised in the Kelo case you would have voted for were you a justice on the Supreme Court. Your argument should not simply be your own view about property rights and eminent domain, nor simply a summary of the Kelo case but, instead, should draw upon Supreme Court precedents in the Epstein and Walker book dealing with the public use/public purpose controversy and the circumstances of the Kelo case to build what you see as the proper solution to dispute raised in Kelo. Who would you side with, the majority or dissenters, and why?