SSRN-Kelo v. New London: Deciding the First Case Under the New Bill of Rights by John Ryskamp
Thanks to John Ryskamp for e-mailing me with the link to his article on the case of Kelo v. New London, currently before the United States Supreme Court.
Here's the abstract of his article, with my emphasis:

The Supreme Court has just decided to hear Kelo v. New London (No. 04-108). The Court will use the case to decide--for the first time in thirty years - whether there should be elevated scrutiny of housing. Previous cases - such as San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, Lindsey v. Normet and Dandridge v. Williams--rejected such elevation, but the Court indicated that it was prepared to raise scrutiny if there was a proper Constitutional formulation which located such scrutiny in the Constitution. This paper provides the formulation, beginning with James Madison's statement that the Constitution prevents every assumption of power in the legislative or executive. For the first time, the author shows how Madison's use of the word every brings housing and similar facts, under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and mandates elevated scrutiny. Given the administrative and political problems inherent in imposing a higher level of scrutiny on housing, the author provides different scenarios for adjudication.

-------------------------
I think this is potentially a very significant case that could have major impact. My Constitutional Law class did a simulation on it. Students played the role of current USSC judges, hold conferences, and vote as they think their own justice would. Last week we held the final vote. Result: 6-3 to reverse the Connecticut Supreme Court and give the win to the property owner, Kelo. Here's the breakdown:

Reverse (meaning Kelo wins): Rehnquist (I know, he's sick--but the student who played him felt fine); Scalia; Thomas; O'Connor, Kennedy; and (shocker) Breyer.

Affirm (meaning New London wins): Stevens; Ginsburg; Souter.