```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 575 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 575

    Expressing support for the private property rights protections 
    guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 4th 
  anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision of Kelo v. City of New 
                                London.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2009

Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself, Ms. Waters, Mr. Broun of Georgia, 
Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Akin, 
   Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Scalise, Mr. 
 Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Sam Johnson 
  of Texas, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Jones, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Mack, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Wamp, 
   Mr. Sessions, Mr. Nunes, and Mr. Smith of Nebraska) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for the private property rights protections 
    guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 4th 
  anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision of Kelo v. City of New 
                                London.

Whereas, on June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case 
        of Kelo v. City of New London;
Whereas the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment states, ``nor shall private 
        property be taken for public use, without just compensation'';
Whereas the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London significantly 
        expanded the scope of the public use provision in the Takings Clause of 
        the 5th Amendment;
Whereas the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London provided for the 
        taking of a person's private property through eminent domain for the 
        benefit of another private entity;
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo v. City of New London affirmed 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 v. City of New London expressed concern 
        that the beneficiaries of this decision were ``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 their power of eminent domain when necessary for public 
        use alone, and with just compensation to the individual property owner: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) State and local governments should only execute the 
        power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the 
        public good in accordance with the 5th Amendment to the 
        Constitution;
            (2) State and local governments must always justly 
        compensate those individuals whose property is taken through 
        eminent domain in accordance with the 5th Amendment to the 
        Constitution;
            (3) any execution of eminent domain by State and local 
        governments that does not comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        constitutes an abuse of government power and a usurpation of 
        the individual property rights, as defined in the 5th Amendment 
        to the Constitution;
            (4) eminent domain should never be used to advantage one 
        private party over another;
            (5) no State or local government should construe the 
        holdings of Kelo v. City of New London as justification to 
        abuse the power of eminent domain; and
            (6) Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the 
        right to address, through legislation, any abuses of eminent 
        domain by State and local governments in light of the ruling in 
        Kelo v. City of New London.
                                 <all>
```