Does the Public Use Clause require more than minimal rational-basis review when the government takes private property for transfer to a specifically identified private owner?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2004), held that when the government uses eminent domain to take property from a private owner to give it to a different private owner—where the taking occurs as part of a comprehensive plan and where the identity of the new private owner was unknown at the time of the taking—the taking may be justified by asserted secondary public benefits subject only to minimal rational-basis review. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Public Use Clause require something more than minimal rational-basis review when the government takes land from one private owner to give it to a specifically identified private owner outside the context of a comprehensive plan? 2. Should Kelo be overturned?