Most of what is missing explicitly is to be found explicitly in the case law. For example, the Modern American Corporation is a person and can legally own another person. This is not explicit in the XIVth Amend, but is implicitly there enough that case law has established the legal validity of private property in that circumstance.
Are you talking legally or effectively?!?
It's not clear what you are arguing. Are you saying that there's no private property right because it's not explicit, or that Dr. Eder's point is invalid because the body of case law prevents Kelo from having the effect he claims, or what...?