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.
This will no doubt come as a surprise to you, but the Connecticut Constitution contains a clause with virtually the same wording. The first question is what defines "public use". Can a state use eminent domain to acquire land and then turn around and sell it to a private developer? Who gets to say? Neither the U.S. or the state constitution defines the term, and since they don't then shouldn't it be up to the state to do so, based on the will of their people as expressed by act of their own state legislature? Isn't that what the 10th Amendment is all about? You may disagree with their interpretation but a clear reading of the Constitution gives them the power to make that distinction and not the federal government. But I forget, the Constitution isn't of much interest to you.
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.
By your definition. Let me pose a different scenario to you. Wyandotte County over in Kansas used eminent domain to acquire several private homes so that they could sell the land to people wanting to build a NASCAR track. The county's logic behind their action was that the track might spur commercial development and generate tax revenue for a county that was sadly lacking in revenue sources. So the property was condemned, the home owners received fair market value, and the Kansas Speedway was built. And as an economic engine it has succeeded far beyond the county government's wildest expectations. The boom has been phenomenal with retail, restaurants, car dealerships, hotel rooms, additional sporting stadiums all being built. The amount of tax revenue that this has generated has allowed the county to reduce real estate taxes, personal property taxes, and sales taxes for all the people in the county while at the same time improving services. Everyone has benefitted from it.
Now you would say that the U.S. Supreme Court should have prevented the people of Kansas from making this decision and reaping the resulting benefits. That's your opinion, apparently being a big central government supporter. But I believe the 10th Amendment gives Kansas the right to make that decision. That seems to be one of the many differences between us.