It's already been done, in a reasonable way. Not trying to be argumentative here; it's just hard to see how much more clear the already-existing 5th amendment could be.
I suppose what you are saying is that you want to back an amendment that would disallow all "takings" even in the event of any need for public use. So what if, for example, the nation needed privately-owned large trees (don't laugh; this happened in the pre-revolutionary war days) in order to mast ships to prevent an invasion, and the owners of the trees refused to sell? Should the rest of the nation simply sit by and wait to be invaded?
Sure, that's an extreme example, but the founders were aware of situations in which the survival of the nation, and the avoidance of chains and slavery for all, depended on taking private property. Those situations may come again, so not allowing ANY eminent domain might cause real problems down the line.
The trick is keeping the eminent domain for actual public use only. That's what we used to have judges and courts for.
I guess what I'm saying is that laws, amendments, words, really are not sufficient to maintain liberty. Some layer of responsible people -- once judges, in the future the citizenry, perhaps -- is needed.
Good points. I was only listing the solutions given by others here so far, including amendments on both the federal and state levels.
I don't want to see new laws enacted either. But, the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation" leaves it wide open. The courts aren't limiting eminent domain. Not even the USSC is limiting it.