```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 340 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 340

   Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives 
regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo 
  et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections 
  afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth 
                               Amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2005

Mr. Gingrey (for himself, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Ms. Harris, Mr. 
Otter, Mr. Hayworth, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
Istook, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Foley, 
 Mr. Poe, and Mr. Blunt) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives 
regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo 
  et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections 
  afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth 
                               Amendment.

Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states ``nor shall private 
        property be taken for public use, without just compensation'';
Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the application of the fifth 
        amendment to each and every State and local government;
Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has historically been 
        interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court to be conditioned upon the 
        necessity that Government assumption of private property through eminent 
        domain must be for the public use and requires just compensation;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. 
        renders the public use provision in the Takings Clause of the fifth 
        amendment without meaning;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. 
        justifies the forfeiture of a person's private property through eminent 
        domain for the sole benefit of another private person;
Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical interpretation of the 
        takings clause and affirms that ``the public use requirement imposes a 
        more basic limitation upon government, circumscribing the very scope of 
        the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit 
        her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another 
        private person'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. holds 
        that the ``standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is 
        therefore deeply perverse'' and the beneficiaries of this decision are 
        ``likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power 
        in the political process, including large corporations and development 
        firms'' and ``the government now has license to transfer property from 
        those with fewer resources to those with more''; and
Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional responsibility and a 
        moral obligation to always defend the property rights of individuals and 
        to only execute its power of eminent domain for the good of public use 
        and contingent upon the just compensation to the individual property 
        owner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the House of Representatives--
                    (A) disagrees with the majority opinion in Kelo et 
                al. v. City of New London et al. and its holdings that 
                effectively negate the public use requirement of the 
                takings clause; and
                    (B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in Kelo et 
                al. v. City of New London et al. in its upholding of 
                the historical interpretation of the takings clause and 
                its deference to the rights of individuals and their 
                property; and
            (2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
                    (A) State and local governments should only execute 
                the power of eminent domain for those purposes that 
                serve the public good in accordance with the fifth 
                amendment;
                    (B) State and local governments must always justly 
                compensate those individuals whose property is assumed 
                through eminent domain in accordance with the fifth 
                amendment;
                    (C) any execution of eminent domain by State and 
                local government that does not comply with 
                subparagraphs (A) and (B) constitutes an abuse of 
                government power and an usurpation of the individual 
                property rights as defined in the fifth amendment;
                    (D) eminent domain should never be used to 
                advantage one private party over another;
                    (E) no State nor local government should construe 
                the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et 
                al. as justification to abuse the power of eminent 
                domain; and
                    (F) Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves 
                the right to address through legislation any abuses of 
                eminent domain by State and local government in light 
                of the ruling in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et 
                al.
                                 <all>
```