For anyone with respect for the U.S. Constitution in general and the 10th Amendment in particular, yes. So that excludes you right off the bat.
In the Kelo decision the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state could use eminent domain to take the property for urban renewal reasons or whatever. Now we can debate all day over the logic behind the state court's decision, and likely agree, but what the U.S. Supreme Court did was to refuse to overrule the state Supreme Court. And I would defy you to show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to tell a state what they can use eminent domain for. So clearly it was a 10th Amendment issue and the Supreme Court upheld that. Right or wrong it was the state's decision to make and not the federal governments right to overturn it.
Or maybe you would have it otherwise? Maybe you want the federal government to tell states when they can use eminent domain and when they can't? States like Texas have strict restrictions on what eminent domain can be used for; but obviously you think the feds should step in and tell them whether they are right in that or wrong. I've suspected all along that your claimed support for the Constitution was a sham. Thanks for confirming it.
Tail end of the fifth amendment.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
As already noted, the "use" wasn't public. It was private. The City of New London attempted to seize another persons property for the purpose of giving it to another non governmental entity.
Or maybe you would have it otherwise? Maybe you want the federal government to tell states when they can use eminent domain and when they can't?
When it is the state's intention to take away private property and give it to someone else to be their private property, Yes, I want the Federal government to prevent it. That is not how "public use" is intended to work.