No, not from my understanding how it is written. In layman's terms, Section 3 addresses that question. It specifically states that however some may interpret whatever is written in Section 1, that interpretation cannot be construed to mean that the Federal Government is restricted or prevented from confiscating private lands, "according to law" (meaning, as long as the Feds follow the laws for confiscation, i.e., condemnation or other such methods, the takings are theirs).
Which probably didn't need to be stated because the president doesn't have the executive power to limit the application of Federal laws otherwise he would be violating his oath of office.