does that make us unreasonable? probably not. it was said about one of the speakers that this particular equipment is relatively benign or modest compared to the equipment that might typically be put on a pole without the public being noticed. and given the heat, the way people feel about this, there are real or imagined the safety issues having to do with arc or radiation or the weight of the equipment on the poll and heavy wind.

does that make us unreasonable? probably not. it was said about one of the speakers that this particular equipment is relatively benign or modest compared to the equipment that might typically be put on a pole without the public being noticed. and given the heat, the way people feel about this, there are real or imagined the safety issues having to do with arc or radiation or the weight of the equipment on the poll and heavy wind. if i were a good citizen and i am nextg, it would seem that i do the minimum amount of out of reach, and the minimum amount about reach would be to have people -- i don't know the minimum fee, but i would say anybody who lives within 10 houses of this equipment certainly would have the right to know we're going to be working on a pole in front of your house, it may and may issue because you will be able to park there, and concerns about safety issues and let me dispel those concerns if that is possible. i am leaning heavily -- i do not know where i will hang my hat on how we get there -- but i am leanin

it has come in handy as if throwing a lifeline to small businesses like mine by protecting us from unreasonable rate hikes. my business is one of an estimated 144,000 businesses in new jersey that can benefit from the new health care tax credit. the monies that i will get from these tax credits gives me the option of being able to absorb the increased rates and my would be responsible for or pay benefits to an additional employee. as these credits and other incentives to expand over the next four years, i'm hoping i will be able to hire one more provider and some support staff. repealing these credits would prevent me from expanding my practice and creating jobs. i am also looking forward to 2014. this is when the state insurance exchange is expected to be up and running. through the exchange, my business will be able to pull together with thousands of other small businesses across the state to be able to access quality -- higher quality insurance plans for a lower cost. a vote -- it is a vote of discrimination and a lack of bargaining power small businesses face today in the insurance market.

now, the language of the fourth amendment is not technical pettit protect us from unreasonable searches the language of the three-pronged tests and circuit splits, a reasonable standard is anchored in our everyday experience of common sense. the supreme court has said that public opposition can be evidence of an reasonableness and i think this means we all have a duty to express our outrage because this is going to help all of the suits go forward if we just shut up and let it go and figure that, you know, this is just one more thing it is too much for me to worry about than it is a lot easier for a court or a judge to say you know what, i don't think this is that unreasonable because people aren't complaining that much. so that is something we can all do to help keep these cases moving forward. my co-counsel or plan to sign this is going to talk about another troubling issue in this case regarding jurisdiction. >> thanks. so basically we are in a different position than i guess i picked in that we file our case and trial court and federal district court and they are now in the appellat

now, the language of the fourth amendment is not technical pettit protect us from unreasonable searches the language of the three-pronged tests and circuit splits, a reasonable standard is anchored in our everyday experience of common sense. the supreme court has said that public opposition can be evidence of an reasonableness and i think this means we all have a duty to express our outrage because this is going to help all of the suits go forward if we just shut up and let it go and figure that, you know, this is just one more thing it is too much for me to worry about than it is a lot easier for a court or a judge to say you know what, i don't think this is that unreasonable because people aren't complaining that much. so that is something we can all do to help keep these cases moving forward. my co-counsel or plan to sign this is going to talk about another troubling issue in this case regarding jurisdiction. >> thanks. so basically we are in a different position than i guess i picked in that we file our case and trial court and federal district court and they are now in the appellat

using there. the keyword is unreasonable. the reason that you choose the word unreasonable, rather than the second circuit's test of unlawful is? >> because frankly i'm not sure what that means. and i think that's become clear in the context of that briefing. does unlawful mean the police violated a provision of the penal code? does unlawful mean there has to be a completed fourth amendment violation? >> you don't know what unlawful means? but you know what unreasonable means? >> yes. unreasonable -- unreasonable is the touch stone of every, you know, 4th amendment case. we are saying there does not have to be antecedent completed 4th amendment violation. as is the case in any 4th amendment case, did the officers act? >> do you have any doubt that it's unlawful for a police officer to threaten to burst into a home? >> no, your honor. >> so why do you need unreasonable? if, indeed, there was a threat of eminent entry, we're going to bust down the -- if that was the threat, then it's unlawful. surely. >> yes, and that's why my

unreasonable. it's the kind of idea that president obama was warning us against, and tghly so. i saw on the right from the grass-roots to kind of elite, conservative commentators, a huge outpouring of support for the president's speech, because there are a lot of people that embrace the idea chris: let me ask you about the republicans. this wednesday they're going to bring up health care a week later than they planned. but not long ago they were talking about their number-one goal wasn't just getting rid of het care, it was erasing the man who put it there, barack obama. they would say in their public discourse, we've got to get rid of this president in the next election. is that tone going to change as they bring up health care? >> yes, i do think the tone will change. members that i've talked to say they're going to move forward with the debate this week, and wednesday there will be a vote on that and there's been a recognition to debate the policy and try and change the tone. so there is recognition that they need to be more civil in congress. however, there has been some ob

it has come in handy as if throwing a lifeline to small businesses like mine by protecting us from unreasonable rate hikes. my business is one of an estimated 144,000 businesses in new jersey that could benefit from the new health care tax credits. the moneys that i will get from these tax debts gives me the option of being able to b absorb the increased rates that my employees would be responsible for or pay benefits for an additional employee. as these credits and other incentives expand over the next four years, i am hoping that i'll be able to hire one more provider and some support staff. repealing these credits would prevent me from expanding my practice and creating jobs in my community. i am also looking forward to 2014. this is when the state insurance exchange is expected to be up and running. through the exchange, my business will be able to pool together with thousands of other small businesses across the state to be able to access higher quality insurance plans for a lower cost. a vote to scrap these exchanges is a vote endorsing the discrimination and the lack of bargaining power

has come in handy as it is throwing a lifeline to small businesses like mine by protecting us from unreasonable rate hikes. my business is one of an estimated 144,000 businesses in new jersey that could benefit from the new health care tax credit. the monies that i will get from these tax credits gives me the option of being able to absorb the increased rates that my employees would be responsible for, or pay benefits on additional employees. as these credits and other incentives expand over the next four years, i am hoping that i will be able to hire one more provider and some support staff. repeating these credits would prevent me from expanding my practice and creating jobs in my community. i am also looking forward to 2014. this is when the state insurance exchange is expected to be up and running. through the exchange, my business will be able to pull together with thousands of other small businesses across the state to be able to access quality, higher quality insurance plans or lower costs. about to scrap these exchanges is a vote of discrimination and a lack of bargaining power small bu

in order to qualify to use this 20 percent rule, you have to submit to the building department a form we have about unreasonable hardship request and document what the cost is show how you will spend your 20 percent that should be reflected in the plans you submit and an inspector will check it. if's over 116 thousand dollars then everything has to comply according to the regular code. there are exceptions. that's sort of the global picture of the disabled access. restaurants eshg specially are sensitive because they have been the target of many lawsuits for accessibility for entrances and restrooms. not too many about employee work spaces. >> [inaudible]. >> no. if you are over 116 thousand dollars this little exception we are reading that exception would not longer apply. you would have to go back to let's see -- look at section 1134 b.2 general on the top left second paragraph. it says all existing buildings and facilities when alterations or repairs are made shall comply with all provisions of division one new buildings except as modified by this division and the modification is the part that says where you

i do not think it is unreasonable for us to not want to proceed not knowing what the numbers are.t will have an impact on something. you have to have some idea of where they're going to get the cuts and savings. i do not think that is an unreasonable thing to be talking about. i am trying to understand the meaning of this. that is other than having something to talk about on the day of the state of the union. what does this mean in real terms? does it have any real meaning? to me, this is not even a pledge. it is a vague statement appropriate for a press release. i want the red sox to win the world series, but i will not introduce a piece of legislation to say that. is this theater or does it have any value? >> let me put it this way. the very first rule passed by the house gave the chairman of the budget committee the ability to pick a number of the hat anyway. there is no additional authority in that regard. they have given the chairman of the budget committee that the authority. we have surrendered our ability to vote on that number. because of the absence of any number of this

unreasonable to have another hearing and then have this issue arise. i think the person to weigh in on that would be the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. a variety of uses are allowed for a legal dwelling units, and there are certain provisions. you cannot have members of the public coming and visiting. you cannot have signs up, display that you are essentially operating as a retail store. commissioner garcia: so i would say the answer to your question -- >> if we can at least have that -- president peterson: this is a logical person appeal, so we are limited to those issues. commissioner garcia: i would say you are safe. >> i would like to recommend another date, because our calendars are quite full. commissioner garcia: two days after valentine's day, maybe there will be more love in the room. commissioner hwang: i would like the briefing that was requested at the prior hearing. mr. pacheco, do you have that? secretary pacheco: for the permit holder to go first? president peterson: we want to make it extremely clear that any briefing you choose to submit up to 3 pages in the exhibit, so the noise study, whatever play and you have for where this is goi

, and bear in mind that if this didn't work, it will be very public, and each of us pays the price for being unreasonable. in this case, i believe it's reasonable to maintain the rules, reasonable to pledge to you that i expect to consult with you more even than chairman towns did because i intend on notifying you personally if we intend to send a subpoena out and not through a staff correspondence, and with that, are there any other further -- mr. burrton? >> real briefly, i'd like to say that i agree with everything that you said. i would just like to make one brief comment about the period within which i was chairman. we had this severe question about illegal campaign contributions coming from all over the world, and the reason i issued the number of subpoenas # that i did was because we were trying to get to the bottom of that. as a matter of fact, we had over 100 people take the 5th amendment or flee the country because they didn't want to testify. it was a very difficult time. these are different times, and i appreciate what you just said, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady from new york.

unreasonable for for for the russian opposition to expect similar attitudes and a similar help to its now but ahead of the presidential election in two thousand and twelve russian opposition leaders want. the us authorities to side with them in order to have a more democratic election in the country well the russian and them the u.s. investor to russia in response to that has said that that shows that to russian opposition leaders than it does do not understand democracy the way americans do. to further improve relations between russia and the us the a bomb or administration has a stance simply refrain from vocal support for democratic reform civil society activists in russia are unaware of the contours of the u.s. approach to shuman rights and its record of public statements m speeches russia's democrats remain in near terminal disagree constant personality disputes disagreements with the kremlin differences over the viability of political activity . while in the summary of his report to washington d.c. the us ambassador to russia has also said that he believes he's got the impression from this meeting that the russians opposition is acting in an effective way to tell him many times days all

and bear in mind that if this doesn't work, it will be very public, and each of us would pay a price for being unreasonable. in this case, i believe it is reasonable to maintain the rules. it's reasonable to pledge to you that i expect to consult with you more even than chairman towns did, because i intend on notifying you personally. if we intend to send a subpoena out and not through a staff correspondence. and with that, are there any other further -- mr. burton? >> real briefly, real briefly, mr. chairman. i would like to say that i agree with everything that you said. i would just like to make one brief comment about the period within which i was chairman. we had severe questions about illegal campaign contributions coming from all over the world, and the reason i issued the number of subpoenas that i did was because we were trying to get to the bottom of that. as a matter of fact, we had over 100 people either take the fifth amendment or flee the country because they didn't want to testify. so it was a very difficult time. these are different times, and i appreciate what you just said. and i yield ba

unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our side of the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on those things. but speaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons to have guns. you're not going to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american under

i do not think it is an unreasonable thing for mr. van hollen or any of us on either side of the aisle to not want to proceed knowing what the numbers are and having a pretty good idea of where you're going to find the savings are cuts. it is surely going to have an impact on something. there is some idea where you're going to get these cuts, the savings. i don't think it is an unreasonable thing to be talking about here. i guess i will wrap up, mr. van hollen. i am trying to understand what the meaning of this is. other than having something to talk about on the day of the state of union, what does this all mean in real terms? does it have any real meaning or is it just a -- to me, this is the end of the planet -- this is not even a pledge. it is that they, which you wash your statement more appropriate for the press release. the let the red sox to win world series -- series but i am not one to issue a press release. is this theater or does it have any value? [inaudible] >> mr. mcgovern, let me put it this way. the very first rule that was passed by the hou

premiums and expenditures are major medical health insurance plans and requires us to publicly justify their reason for unreasonable premium increases for all premium increases. gets insurance departments new analytical terms -- tools. improve transparency and provide invaluable information to help educate all of our constituents. repealing health care would mean that illinois and the rest of the state would no longer have access to resources to review, propose health-insurance premium increases and hold insurance companies accountable for accessible -- or excessiveexcessive, and justified or unfairly discriminatory rate increases. bust the reason the amendment that i have had the honor to co-sponsor with several of my colleagues. i thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much ms. schakowsky. let me just announced what is our intention as far as proceeding here because we have so many members who are here. a plan to go through by seniority those members of the energy and commerce committee, as i said and these names are just now coming into us that have been submitted and a couple of members have added their nam

unreasonable veto is put down that we would still act. now lord goldsmith, as you know, has said in his statement to us that these words of yours were not compatiblewith the advice that he had given to you the day before. did you understand that the time that your words about an unreasonable veto were inconsistent with the legal let fisa? >> i was making basically a political point. however, i accept entirely that there was an inconsistency between what he was saying and what i was saying there, but was saying it not in a sense as a lawyer, but politically. one thing i just point out here is that -- because this was a very, very difficult situation -- i was trying to hold the line, as i say, and my position was a little more elaborate than the two quotes that you taken from either the news -- i think it was a newsnight thing, an interview in the house of commons. i was quoting from the house of commons, but you made a similar point to jeremy paxman on six that the were in. >> back through both the house of commons and the interview. elsewhere in both i expressed in slightly differently. it was worth just letting me say how i expressed it there. i

us to more radiation is safe. any others wanted to know why new measures didn't violate our fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. overall this very valid questions, there is a general feeling of outrage that our government's casual assumption that they could assume that every hard-working american who was the airport store was a terrorist who had to be strip-searched were groped. other body scanners effective? if not, why is the government insisting if we do not use them, we cannot be safe? even the tsa is that these so-called advanced imaging technology scanners are both laboratory and operational testing, congress' own audit agency said, it remains unclear that they can actually do the primary job they are intended to do. i'd like to add that pistol is on the record as saying that they have never tested a bomb like abdulmutallab had in his pants once in the scanners. on top of that, the machines radiation penetrates to depth of only one 10th of the change. they will never detect explosives that have been followed or put it delicately hidden in body cavities. neither by the way with the enha

unreason. again, you don't know and after a while you don't ask because these things happen. i mean, they identified some of us as that. there's. they identified others is not under what criteria, you know, i don't know. the other thing about the green revolution -- i'll just say, the events in tunis may have had a huge ipo on the iranian sites. one of the things they came up with, which was really cute was the same in persian. is that tunis tunis, means to ms. currie, iran couldn't. or it also means tunis is tunis. iran is not tunis in the same way. i mean, they are arguing about it just as much. why does the work in one place and not in another? my 52nd answer is that ben ali had the place to go. the folks in tehran do not. i mean, can you imagine them running away to saudi arabia? i doubt it. >> may i -- let me speak to the treatment issue because it's always been of some controversy and i expect, tom, that's why you asked the question. everybody that was there suffered in their own way. make no mistake. it was sunny picnic for anyone. what john points out is very accurate. very early on they identified all

unreason. again, you don't know and after a while you don't ask because these things happen. i mean, they identified some of us as that. there's. they identified others is not under what criteria, you know, i don't know. the other thing about the green revolution -- i'll just say, the events in tunis may have had a huge ipo on the iranian sites. one of the things they came up with, which was really cute was the same in persian. is that tunis tunis, means to ms. currie, iran couldn't. or it also means tunis is tunis. iran is not tunis in the same way. i mean, they are arguing about it just as much. why does the work in one place and not in another? my 52nd answer is that ben ali had the place to go. the folks in tehran do not. i mean, can you imagine them running away to saudi arabia? i doubt it. >> may i -- let me speak to the treatment issue because it's always been of some controversy and i expect, tom, that's why you asked the question. everybody that was there suffered in their own way. make no mistake. it was sunny picnic for anyone. what john points out is very accurate. very early on they identified all

unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our sidef the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on those things. but eaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons toave guns. you're not goi to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american understandi

determine whether they are unreasonable or excessive and then say you know that's actually just not fair to consumers in california and colorado remain and other states that have actually used these provisions this is the federal government looking at the health care that's offered in the state it's the state health insurance commissioner saying maybe this doesn't make sense for our state just as your insurance commissioner has been, mr. chairman in california, and so once offered the accountability for insurance company premium increases amendment, and what it does is it says that the repeal would not take effect unless and until the office of management and budget in consultation with the director of the congressional budget office certifies to congress to repeal affected by the sections will not restore the ability of insurance companies to impose unreasonable premium increases as protected under the law. so important to consumers all across this country. and then finally, as i conclude, i want to share with you, a story a constituent of mine who had to deal with a pretty significant premium hike increase and it wasn't 59%, but it wasn't affordable for him. was just an a

unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our side of the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on those things. but speaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons to have guns. you're not going to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american under

unreasonable and what is irresponsible. and our side of the debate believes that you do in fact have a meaningful constitutional right to have and use firearms. which means that the burden is on the government to show, or on your own, we can't protect public safety even to the degree that we normally do, even though, of course, they're not required to do so. that is the time when people should most have access to the means of self-defense. they think it's okay to disarm people when society breaks down. so, of course, we disagree on those things. but speaking personally for myself, i would not take a second amendment case that tries to vindicate something that i believe is constitutionally within the government's power, or otherwise irresponsible. so i'm not going to take cases that claim that it's perfectly fine for mentally disturbed violent felons to have guns. you're not going to see me for a right to have the vending machines at junior high schools selling ammunition. we don't do that kind of thing. but at the same time, i would posit that our view of what is reasonable is much more consistent with the traditional american under