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. | PoliFocus

H.Res. 340109th Congress

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.

Subjects

Law

View Vote Breakdown

Summary

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

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.

Full Text

Legislative Actions

2005-06-24
Introduced in House
2005-06-24
Introduced in House
2005-06-24
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2005-06-29
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5370)
2005-06-30
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
2005-06-30
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5577-5585)
2005-06-30
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 340.
2005-06-30
FURTHER DEBATE - By unanimous consent, the House proceeded with an additional 12 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
2005-06-30
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
2005-06-30
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5592-5593)
2005-06-30
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 33, 18 Present (Roll no. 361).(text as passed House: CR H5577)
Roll Call #361 (House)
2005-06-30
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 33, 18 Present (Roll no. 361). (text as passed House: CR H5577)
Roll Call #361 (House)
2005-06-30
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Ask about this bill

checking server…

Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.