H. Res. 340
In the House of Representatives, U.S., 
June 30, 2005.
Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states 
‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, with-
out 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 his-
torically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme 
Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Govern-
ment assumption of private property through eminent do-
main must be for the public use and requires just com-
pensation; 
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 inter-
pretation of the takings clause and affirms that ‘‘the 
public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation
•HRES 340 EH 
upon government, circumscribing the very scope of the 
eminent domain power: Government may compel an indi-
vidual 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 corpora-
tions and development firms’’ and ‘‘the government now 
has license to transfer property from those with fewer re-
sources to those with more’’; and 
Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional re-
sponsibility 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
•HRES 340 EH 
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 pur-
poses 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 indi-
vidual property rights as defined in the fifth amend-
ment; 
(D) eminent domain should never be used to 
advantage one private party over another; 
(E) no State nor local government should con-
strue the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New 
London et al. as justification to abuse the power of 
eminent domain; and
•HRES 340 EH 
(F) Congress maintains the prerogative and re-
serves the right to address through legislation any 
abuses of eminent domain by State and local gov-
ernment in light of the ruling in Kelo et al. v. City 
of New London et al. 
Attest:
Clerk.