Part 1: Short answer (a couple/few thorough, but concise paragraphs).

1. Can a chamber of Congress design its own rules for seating an elected member (that is, allowing them to participate and vote as a representative)? Explain.

2. Can Congress delegate some of its legislative power to the executive branch (constitutionally)? Explain.

3. Can a state impose term limits on a federal representative? Explain.

Part 2: Hypothetical Case. Answer the following prompt in no more than 5pages (using standard fonts, margins, and spacing), detailing your ruling on the following case.

A suburban city with a bustling central business district is requiring all proposed commercial development (new construction or expansion) projects to pay a $20 per proposed square foot fee as a condition for permit approval. In other words, a proposal to build a 6000 sq/ft retail store on commercially zoned land would cost $120,000 to get the permit approved; a complete remodel/redevelopment of an existing 2000 sq/ft retail space will be required to pay $40,000. This rather large fee is payable in installments to the city, but must be completely paid for the permits to be issued. The city requires this in order to offset the costs of expanding, improving and maintaining city infrastructure while keeping property taxes and utilities fees low for both businesses and residents. They argue that new commercial buildings and development require numerous and costly expansions of city services, including: upgrades and expansions to the water and power systems; improved roads to handle increased traffic; expanding public transportation options; building and fixing sidewalks, bike paths, trials and other pedestrian thoroughfares; providing environmental protection and maintenance; adding and maintaining green spaces and other aesthetic enhancements; additional law enforcement patrols; etc. Thus they argue that those who most need (and profit from) these public projects should cover a significant portion of the costs. And, in fact, the city intends to delegate nearly all of the collected fees directly to these city services and infrastructure projects (minus administrative costs, and a small amount set aside in a fund dedicated to paying back debt on city bonds related to building and infrastructure projects).

If a group of developers were to sue this city claiming that an unjustified taking had occurred (in that this ultra high fee curbed their ability to develop and subsequently profit on the development of their land), how do you think the Court should/could decide? And on what legal basis/precedents would they base their ruling? Explain and be specific, with reference to cases as appropriate.