HRES 340 · 109th Congress · Law

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.

Introduced 2005-06-24· Sponsored by Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11]· House

Bill Progress

Introduced
Committee
House Vote
4
Senate
5
Enacted
Latest: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.(2005-06-30)

Recorded Votes

PassedHouse · 2005-06-30
Roll #361
Yea 365Nay 33
Democrats
144 Yea·32 Nay
Republicans
220 Yea·1 Nay
PassedHouse · 2005-06-30
Roll #361
Yea 365Nay 33
Democrats
144 Yea·32 Nay
Republicans
220 Yea·1 Nay

How Did Your Rep Vote?

Enter a ZIP code or representative's name

Plain Language Summary

[AI summary unavailable — showing source text] Expresses disagreement with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. ( Kelo) and its holdings that effectively negate the public use requirement of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that state and local governments: (1) should only execute the power of eminent domain for the public good; (2) must always justly compensate affected individuals in accordance with the Fifth Amendment; (3) should never use eminent domain to advantage one private party over another; and (4) should not construe Kelo as justification to abuse the power of eminent domain. Reserves to Congress the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by state and local government in light of Kelo .…

Summarized by Claude AI · Non-partisan · For informational purposes only

Cosponsors (20)

20 Republicans