No, they read the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In the Kelo case the court refused to overrule the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court that found the legislation authorizing the use of eminent domain in this case constitutional. Now we can argue the wisdom of that decision all day but good law or bad law the 10th Amendment gives states the right to make it. And absent any clear violation of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't overrule them.
Did you ever read the Supremacy Clause? The United States Consitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The CT State Supreme Court cannot override the Consitution. How about the 5th Amendment? In his opinion, Justice Stevens actually CHANGED the words to “public benefit”. What happened to 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to change the Constitution? This decision was and is indefensible and is probably the worst example of judicial activism in Supreme Court History.
I would argue that the 10th Amendment does not apply. It is the catch-all for items not covered in the Constitution and property taking is covered by the 4th and 5th Amendments.
The tenth Amendment does not give states the right to violate the 5th Amendment right to Private property. Like I said, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. period. Let’s say the state of CT passes a law saying that you must be 21 to vote. That is in clear violation of the 26th Amendment of the right to vote at 18. Are you saying that the 10th mendment would allow that?