probationary legal status would you be a. eligible for any sort of means means tested federal benefits like medicare the new health care exchanges under the new health care law you would not be eligible for food stamps you would not be able eligible for federal work study bob is going to use a lot of buzz words like amnesty in order to scare people but the fact of the matter is that this is not an amnesty these these kids work harder the best of the brightest of the immigrant community they want to serve the united states this is going to enrich our united states military this is going to enrich our education our institutions of higher education these kids want to be part of the fabric of america and i think that we should let them it's not a massive amnesty in fact i had it exactly right that they're going to have to be here for at least ten years on a probationary status even before they can become citizens and could potentially sponsor another immigrant whether it was a spouse or. a child they would not be eligible to brin

both face off at the highest legal level yet. terry mcsweeney is live in front of the 9th circuit court of appeals with more. >> number one, supporters have to discuss with the three-member panel whether they in fact have standing to represent yes on this issue and, number two, whether judge vaughan walker's overturning is legal. you can follow this issue every step along its legal path ever since approved in 2008. state supreme court upheld it, judge vaughan walker said it violated due process and equal protection. a handful of people are in line already to be in that courtroom for the arguments. one we spoke with said this is history. >> well, i -- i think it's an important issue. i'm kind of a passionate court-watcher. arguments for lower profile cases than this. thought it was important to be here and witness history today. >> before schwarzenegger and attorney general jerry brown are refusing to defend the voter-approved member. that's why there's a question which group can technically represent the voters on this topic. pro

well the term imperial presidency is a legal concept that legal lawyers have talked about for some time and the theory basically gives the idea that the president can overrule congress and particularly in times of war and that sort of thing and interests in the one nine hundred ninety s. in the early ninety ninety s. there were two legal scholars the two top universities in america one was you and the other was but we were both you know discussed aspects of this one was very strident his name was john yoo and he later became. a professor u.c. berkeley and he spoke out against clinton who he felt was going to war too much was wasting taxpayer money and he talked about clinton's imperial presidency and there was another legal school scholar at yale and his name is harold koh now howell co protested what clinton was doing he didn't speak so much of the. presidency but he spoke out against treatment of haitian refugees in one town alone and he together with a group of students the president and one and there's a book about that called storming the which is quite amazing in itself that i tel

lee bloodiest -- finalized and legalized. requiring orders of abatement are unrealistic in slow-moving procedures to get a building permits through planning. recently i went through a d r request a hearing -- the art request a hearing -- dr request during -- hearing for a building permit. sorry. but since i m going of a reasonable speed and i do not think i should be fined or have an assessment of cost. the procedure itself is slow. there is a policy statement that says that the process should be fair and understandable. i think it is a matter of fairness that i would have tried to legalize. if i have followed all the steps. that is all but 1/2 to say. thank you. >> any questions? >> did you start to work before the work was executed? >> this was billed 25 years ago. as a result, disputing with my neighbors, i was turned in to the building department. yes, it was built before. the permit in applying for is for legalization. >> i make a motion to extend additional troops at this time. >> any public comment? seeing no one, ok.

he is right that there is a lot of legal uncertainty. for too long, we spent a lot of time talking about title one vs title to. -- title two. i can say that our members look for title to reclassification of because we live in a world where these services are not the same as your traditional telephony services. that being said, is focusing less on profits and more on finding solutions that will lead to innovation. >> rod macdonald is quite the dramatic gatt. i have to agree with part of what he said. i think that the title one theory that the fcc adopted is a leaky ship and therefore to have a difficult time in court justifying it. we would have preferred that they reverse the decision from 2002 and reclassify internet access as a title two communications service. that would have been a much firmer legal foundation then this decision. is going to be difficult. i think that we are born to try to help the fcc support its decision, but it is going to be difficult.

congress does nothing and everybody waits to see what happens legally. of legal court could make a final ruling on whether it is constitutional. >> coming up, imagine your kid not to extend or treating or face book. it will tell you how to get them to say no. >> it every day it for today i will have the forecast coming up. lots of heavy rain at the bay bridge today making for a tough go out and some flooded it roads made it tricky to drive. there rain has worn down of little bit and a couple of showers out there and you want to show you out the light side appears storm tracker for and most of the it showers are into the north bay and some of them in marin county. the shower right here going to the northeast with the alicia of getting some rain northeast and get them up to prepare with the northeast. but once you get high enough the one place that it is getting grain at where the snow levels are so high it about 6,000 ft.. echo summit does have some snow today with winter weather it in effect and there is the foot expected at higher elevations. there is s

the legal services corporation. and the appropriation for this year, at least as it currently is listed, is $440 million. and perhaps what we're saying here is using the tarp fund as the vehicle and keeping tarp alive is the wrong process here. perhaps this isn't a tarp or financial services issue, the right way is an appropriation issue. if the majority is upset that there is not enough money going to legal services for the poor, whether it's for foreclosures or other legal issues, the right path would be addressing the appropriations committee and asking for additional funds within an already existing process. now, the committee's staff is not aware of whether or not geithner has now said he is in fact of this -- favor of this bill. we don't know of any conversations, but we have no doubt to disagree with the gentleman from massachusetts' statement that he's had conversations. we heard about a letter but -- mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? does the gentleman yield? mr. terry: i will yield to you. mr. frank: ye

on legal aid directly that law would have to be changed to rely on. >> mr. secretary, it puzzles me when hedge funds get money, i believe they pay for lawyers, and it puzzles me a vast amount of t.a.r.p. money has been expended on legal counsel for the benefit obviously of the government. it seems as though lawyers are understood to be a necessary and essential component of all the transactions that t.a.r.p. and hamp -- that t.a.r.p. undertakes except when homeowners need lawyers. >> that puzzled me too when i was first confronted with it, but i'm very confident the judgment our lawyers made is the right one. >> i appreciate your engagement with me on that. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, switching gears here and talking about cars here for a little bit. so as you're aware in december of 2008, the decision was made to use t.a.r.p. funds to provide financial support to the general motors and chrysler. would you have done that? would you have reached the same decision if you had been secretary at the time? >> it was not my decision to make as you im

controversy in california and we're going to look at how it became illegal and the efforts it make it legal and the people who profit from a crop that has gone unregulated and untaxed. in canada, marijuana is illegal, at least technically, but enforcement is more lax, that means you can find places as we did in 1998, where people sell, buy and smoke unusual openly. >> reporter: in vancouver, british columbia, marijuana is officially illegal, but people smoke it openly. at the cannabis cavee where cigarette smoking is not allowed, customers come into to lunch and smoke pot. >> this is b.c. premium bud, the good stuff. >> reporter: the cafe doesn't sell pot, but customers can bring their open, roll a joint over coffee and smoke without fearing the police. how is that? >> oh, this is a pretty good find this stuff. it's pretty good. definitely the highlight of my trip to vancouver. >> reporter: the cafe's owners claim no one has ever been arrested here for smoking pot. when they are smoking is called b.c. bud grown right in british columbia. law enforcement officials call it the most potent mar

agency you have official cover inches and none official coverage and so if you say you don't have a legal agents that you this probably is a small country without serious geopolitical interests. of you not a question for for the foreign intelligence perhaps. be careful what you see everything is recorded. see. russia's political life is dominated by you and mr cohen. you can't tell me if you or any other person have politicians in russia and if there are any perhaps you would like to hear you name someone who you would like to see as an ally in the future issues or maybe some adversaries politically hard like to make an official statement we do you have politicians like this in our country and actually you know some of the names like you would and i can remember some outstanding people like the political faction leaders in our state duma these are well known politicians and i'm not certain casting about that you but one of these people have been for decades on our political landscape and some poll decisions are not in the state duma but they are still well known some call them outstanding

that let to endless legal battles in the courts of florida and finally the u.s. supreme court. join me as we look back as the suspenseful 36 days as the fight for the white house continued between then vice president al gore and texas governor george w. bush. >> so much bitterness in washington. time to have a fresh start. >> one of the reasons i was successful as the governor of texas is because i didn't try to be all things to all people. >> the only way to convince voters to vote for al gore was to not ask them for a third clinton term. >> we are entering a new time. we are electing a new president and i stand here tonight as my own man and i want you to know me for who i really am. >> well, about a week and a half before the election, karl rove suggested that george bush could actually win by as many as nine points across the country. >> bret. >> the bush campaign is asking me to wait 20 minutes on the story to get they're ducks in a row. >> we can't do that. >> revealations about governor george w. bush. >> there is a report out tonight that 24 years ago i was apprehended

eric thomas with our legal analyst dean johnson.ant to tune in for that. >> that's it for us today. thanks for joining us. >> "who wants to be a millionaire" coming up next. bye-bye. [ female announcer ] keurig has over 200 varieties of gourmet coffee and tea to choose from. it's the way to individually brew fresh, delicious coffee in under a minute. way to brew, hon. [ female announcer ] choose. brew. enjoy. keurig. honey, i can't find my internet cord. oh, i'll borrow hailey's. you're downloading movies. fast! from here? where is her cord?! we switched to at&t high speed internet and got wireless access. no more cords. wireless, okay, honestly, can i just get a cord, please? dad, the cord's invisible. [ female announcer ] for a limited time, call to get high speed internet for just $14.95 a month with a 1-year price guarantee. it's our fastest internet for the price! oooh. videos online? here? how much is that? nothin'. at&t high speed internet at home includes access here. our invisible cord is really long, dad. oooh. [ femalenno

i now turn to the legal authority on these internet rules. congress gave the commission a mandate to inform its rule to the aspect of the communications industry. the open internet rules response to that challenge. the commission has authority to adopt them. the commission is directed to encourage the deployment on a timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all americans. this is all consistent with the view that the commission is directed to take action that encourages broadbent employment to all americans and promotes local telecommunications competition or removes barriers for infrastructure investment. the rules before you meets all requirements. the commission is charged with protecting competition. it has authority to ensure over the top internet voice services can develop to rival phone services. open internet rules help to do these things. the commission's authority flows from its responsibility to oversee broadcasting and advance video competition. blocking online offerings, limits the ability of television every bro

robert's rules of order and existing legal and vice, fresh legal advisor, and just go ahead and make the appointment through motion. >> to answer your question, supervisor daly, it would be six votes. it is the approval of the item after it is amended, it those but are different -- if those are different. supervisor daly: point of information. you believe that your proposal does not require a devotes? >> it would be in the board rules. if you adopt the process today, it is six votes, because it outlines the existing board rules and the roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: what about the other? >> there is an opportunity for the board as a committee as a whole -- supervisor daly: which is 11 members. >> 11 members. president chiu: it will require six votes, but after that, as supervisor elsbernd noted, we would be changing the roberts rules of order. for discussion? supervisor campuos? supervisor campos: i guess my two cents is i do not know if there is consistent application of the rules going on. the whole point of 5.2 to is that the committee can adopt processes and procedures

it is not legal until you do one more thing. they never got assigned to legalize the signs. there is a permit to remove the signs. it does not trigger any type of notification. this board has been very clear that it has concerns about how they will make a play for the department and initiate a courtesy notice to the property owners where we don't have clear owner authorization. we had a very clear authorization that was on file before you. there is a permit to remove the sign, and that was more than one year ago. that is the information i have on this case. commissioner garcia: with the planning department ever consider when someone is removing a sign from the building such as this, sending a letter that would inform them of the fact that if they were to terminate the relationship, that they are forgoing any right to have had a sign there? >> holly did not send that letter out because we did not receive the owners authorization, and sending of that notice was not necessary. commissioner garcia: it might be necessary because of -- i don't know if we want to be in deep into th

federal courthouse and they are glad to hear two hours of legal wrangling. at the august ruling was overturned and proposition a and the judges will hear arguments on the merits of the case whether or right he was wrong. it is not the only legal question before them because the judges are born to be looking at people who could properly on the ballot in the first place if they had the legal standing to fight for it in court. the court cases called perry vs schwarzenegger. after kristin perry, one-half of a lesbian couple that up printed turn over prop. 810 and schwarzenegger has refused to appeal as well as replacement as the top cop. the imperial county will be arguing that they have legal standing to it >> appeal. it seems like a technicality. >> they will be arguing against property on monday. and the courts could make their decision solely it to someone it seems like a minor detail. >> they are saying that we should it decide to appeal even if the state has not to end the question about standing is could initiative proponents it do that? the ninth circuit

who has the legal right to be involved in this case? and the constitutional questions surrounding marriage. -- same-sex marriage. court houses have become all too familiar for the plaintiffs. their fate is in the hands of this panel. which must decide whether to up hold a ruling that the voters 2008 ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. this panel needs to decide if sponsors have legal right to argue this case since the state top lawyer has decided not to. >> did you ever seek an injunction or an order or anything suggesting the attorney general should appear and appeal? >> we didn't. >> the judges seemed skeptical of an effort by imperial county to intervene. one worried about having no one to defend prop 8. >> if the state doesn't defend it, this is tossing in the tower. >> the judges deciding whether prop 8 violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbian autos this proposition marginalized and stripped over a million zbai lesbian californians of access to what the supreme court of the united states is characterized as

they did not apply for a permit to legalize. the permit that is before us was to object to a project for which a cfc had been granted, so even if we had ample evidence in my opinion that they had done work before, i do not see, as was said by commissioner fung, if there are other standards for denying this, having to do with community standards, then we should base it on that. i would move for a we votere- vote -- i would move for a re- vote. i will leave that alone before we take a vote, and maybe i will make those comments. commissioner hwang: i just wanted to follow-up on what you were saying, commissioner garcia, on item four. and i could be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it seems that the critical issue here is number five, and i think that is where the interplay is. the issuance of the csc. the underlying permit is evidence that is sufficient, and i find the prior evidence sufficient. at the same time, i heard no testimony today that additional evidence is out there that could counter some of the declaration

you don't need a legal pretext. you don't need anything except a judgment on your part that there is an extraordinary circumstance that says, you want to get out. the extraordinary circumstance is that you see that your offensive weapons have been dramatically reduced in their impact by our defense. so they don't need a legal pretext. that has nothing to do with what the senator has just suggested. the final comment i'd make is perhaps the senator and i can as i invite this one more time, i think we've moved enormously with the language that we have in our resolution of ratification from senator demint. we worked on it together. i embraced it. i think it is an important statement. perhaps the senator and i can find some further way to includes dlaw in here see -- include that in here so that we're not taking the risk of what they might or might not dovment neither of us have the ability to predict what their reaction will be, although i think some people would be pretty clear about the fact that it would not be well

and tom, this could be the beginning of a long legal battle. >> tom: susie, it was the individual mandate part of the law that was declared unconstitutional. that's the requirement that citizens buy health insurance beginning in 2014, or pay a penalty. virginia's attorney general challenged that part of the law and today u.s. district judge henry hudson became the first judge to rule against the law. but he refused to put the entire law on hold while it faces legal challenges. >> susie: meanwhile, thehite house said today, it's confident the health care law is constitutional. it's believed that the u.s. supreme court will ultimately end up settling the issue. what does all this mean for businesses, and you? joining us now? mary agnes carey, she's senior correspondent for kaiser health news, a national health care news service. hi, mary agnes. >> hi there. >> susie: so what do you think, will this ruling be upheld? could it become the law of the land? >> well, we've have to see. there are certainly a lot of argument on both sides. the administration would point out and they did point out t

-- legally bound -- to operate in the interests of their owners. as the companies have gotten larger, they've been transformed from mom and pop operations into high-growth, high-investment, big businesses. 15 for-profit education companies that operate 69

i am also wondering if there is any legal recourse in terms of challenging the legality of that within the puc or in court. i am just wondering if the attorney's office has any thoughts on that, or if lafco has that. >> i am from the city attorney's office. the three-year waiting period for customers to switch back is a tariff rule that was adopted by the cpuc. the legislature could just tell them what the ruleless. -- rule is. those are the two most obvious ways to change that. >> if i could follow up on that, nancy miller, as a result of the senate committee, we are hearing where many of these issues were brought out. there is a group that is meeting. they're working to develop a list of legislative issues to be drafted into legislation for next year. i think they are thinking about waiting for the report to come in to finalize that. the idea is definitely to go to the legislature this next session with some legislation to repeal and modify and amend some of these provisions. commissioner mirkarimi: if i am not mistaken, they are talking about the part of the modifications, clarifyin

they are even threatening legal action and arrest. >> hi, this is the united states legal investigation department... there might be a lawsuit filed against you as well as a social security number. >> reporter: they are also calling his friends. >> they contacted a reference i had used. and they threatened her. they are just trying to swindle people. >> reporter: this consumer advocate says he is not alone. thousands who applied for online payday loans are getting these calls and they usually end with a demand for money. >> we are not certain exactly

for some legal analys we're joined by dean johnson.as struck by the judges and their hostility. >> the questn of the morning is who, if anybody, gets to speak for the people of the state of califoia. and all three justices are peppering both sides with question the proponents, there asking elizabeth vargas is a deputy clerk in imperial county. does she have the authority to speak for the people and the attorney general and the governor don't. on the other hand, if the attorney general's not her who does speak for the peoe? who will speak for those voters who supported proposition 8. >> why did they seem so harsh, abrasive? with this issue. e wrestling it's a difficult issue. there's cases going either way. there's no definitive case that presents exactly this situatio that anybody can point to. in fact, charles cooper, the lead counsel for proposition 8 said, judge, i think this case today we're arguing is the case that'soing to make this law. >> the could do it narrowly or nationwi. so many ways to rule on this. >> o of the reasons th

it encourages fraud and even morill legal immigration. today, americans face an unemployment rate of 9.8%, a new record. that record has now topped 9.5% for 16 months, the longest period since the great depression. the dream act means more competition for american workers who are in need of those jobs. it puts the interest of illegal immigrants ahead of the interest of american citizens. i urge my colleagues to put the american people first and oppose this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield to barbara lee of oakland, california, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 0 seconds. ms. lee: the overwhelming majority of the congressional black caucus supports the 800,000 young people who will be able now if we pass this, will be able to live the american dream. it's in our national interests to pass this, but more importantly, this is the right thing to do, pleas

there's been conservative legal commentators and progressive legal commentators that questioned the legaleasoning and the judge's decision. we need to take a step backing let the courts do their work. we have to continue our work with the state to implement this law. the individual responsibility provision is important. there is no doubt about that. we believe, as do many other people on both sides of the aisle, that everybody should participate in our health care system. that's the best way to reduce costs for everybody. when people don't participate in the health care system and go to the emergency room and can't pay bills, that increases premiums for people like you and me. >> do you agree with those on the hill who suggested there was something flawed in the judge's ruling because he was an appointee of george w. bush? are you questioning judge henry hudson's credentials or his thinking on this? do you think this was a political ruling? >> no. we disagree with the result of the ruling, but we're not questioning anybody's politics or judgment in this. we disagree with it. >> if you dis

we should fix legal immigration. and i have the greatest respect for the leadership within the committee. i need to say that in the 23 months that i served on the subcommittee on immigration, it is an embarrassment that we met 12 times and never discussed this. never. never did we have a substantive hearing or discussion on this bill. yet, under martial rule we bring it to the floor with a very short time span in the middle of the night here and try to slam this through. that is fundamentally wrong to the process. when the process is flawed it yields bad results. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm going to recognize the civil rights hero of the congress, john lewis, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. conyers: 45 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, the dream act, this is a bill we sho

one no it's strictly legalized and of course politics never enter the fray according to the russian forces of foreign affairs ministry basically everything that has been done has been done according to procedure and by the law so no comments or contradictions or concerns should be voiced. just to come here and. thank you. well there's more reaction and analysis on that story it on t.v. dot com and here's what i was recovering for you online today frosty the frustration across moscow as a wintery snapper brings airports on roads to a halt it's putting new year holiday plans for thousands on the skids. and dozens of exotic animals die after a fire breaks out another russian traveling circus those details waiting for you at r.t. dot com. the united states may be a nation deep in debt but you would never guess it with stores still ringing in the takings but it's the credit card so i'm making the killings with shoppers weighing heavily on the plastic. but reverend billy a man with a mission to break the american addiction to shopping. truth. you should. stop. her. heart styles and new mu

to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. i am sent via bornstein, the executive director. -- i am cynthia bornstein, the executive director. at an audience, laurence kornfield of the department of building inspection, scott sanchez, the zoning administrator, it will also be representing the planning department. we also have carla short with the department of public works. at this time, if you could please go over the meeting guidelines and to up the swearing and processed -- swearing in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones, beepers, and pagers so they did not disrupt the meeting. appellants, permit holders, and it apart and responders have seven minutes each to present their cases and three minutes for rare bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments with in these time frames. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. members of the public who wish to speak on an item i asked but not requir

>> 100% legal. >> a lot of people think things are legal that are illegal. >> there are currently 99 pot clubs in san jose and they are all illegal because the city doesn't have a zoning ordinance to allow for them. >> we need to provide more access to more patients. that basically means san jose is completely open on monday. >> they will hold a special meeting to establish zoning regulations so pot clubs can legally open in the city until that happens this is inappropriate. >> there is a lot of haze in this picture. >> what are the odds that everyone needs their medicine at the same time? and is it a medicinal act, or are these people simply using this as an excuse to smoke marijuana? >> everyone inside the collective insists their needs are legitimate. i have fibromyalgia. and my bones are getting deformed. >> and they have the paperwork to prove it. in san jose, lisa amin gulezian, abc7 news. >>> the dmv clerk accused of sending a letter to a woman. the woman was placed on leave with pay back in october when the dmv started investigating. she said she was sent a letter quoting bib

proposition nineteen which would have made marijuana legal in the state of california failed to pass a vote this year but it did show that americans are ready to think and talk about marijuana as more than forty percent of californians did support this measure it also showed us that our government even the obama administration could be far behind the populace when it comes to progress and effaced of the challenge their author already they will just bring in a law enforcement to quell the voices of the people and yet for some reason the mainstream media the daily newspapers in california they don't really have a problem with it. now do you remember when obama was still campaigning to be the president of the united states and a lot of people thought he meant it when he said that he would stop federal raids on marijuana growers in california the place where medical pot is legal now clearly that turned out to be a lie and now the obama administration has taken an even tougher stance making it very clear where they stand on the issue of marijuana and a letter to former administrators of t

i am one of the 18,000 legally married in california, but the gerg doesn't recognize it.so my husband can't spomsor me for a card. for people who are legally married in california, and if they are on a different kind of virginia, they can become an overstay and can become denied to come back into this country. so it is very important, and i really thank you, the immigrant rights commission, for supporting a resolution to include it into comprehensive immigration reform, and we need to make sure that exrenlsive immigration be truly immigration and includes all families. we should not leave families out. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> hi. my name is nadia, and i work for the san francisco human rights commission. the commission investigates cases of discrimination based on a number of categories, one of which is national origin, whether that is discrimination in housing, public accommodation, that means any business establishment you go to, or employment. we interpret, especially in instances of housing-based discrimination, that immigration status is part of

i want to ask about the legal challenge for zach or jon, the legal process. is this something that's a nuisance or is it potentially a big deal? is it game changing that this would become the rational to not accept the outcome in a worse case scenario, and if that were to happen from a diplomatic perspective, is there expectation their league also would withhold recognition and then what? >> i'm reluctant to speculate too much on that because i think it's happening all too quickly. i'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that one the chief complaints concerns part of the referendum legislation that says you have to have flee months -- three months between the referendum and the registration itself. that's not happening. what wins between that requirement and the requirement to have it on january 9, i don't know. that's for the courts to decide. you know, i think there was some sort of a statement from the u.s. government recently about this count cripple the -- shouldn't cripple the process, and i tend to agree with that. a lot of parts have not been

even when the ruling comes prop 8 will still be a hot legal issue. >> courthouses have become all too familiar for the plaintiffs trying to overturn prop 8. their fate is now in the hands of this three-judge appeals court panel which must decide whether to uphold a district judge's ruling that the voters' 2008 ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. they will decide if sponsors even have the legal right to argue the case since the state's top lawyer has decided not to. >> did you ever seek an injunction or an order or anything suggesting that the attorney general should appear and appeal? >> no, we didn't. >> the judges also seem skeptical of an effort by imperial county to intervene but at least one worried about having no one to defend prop 8. >> and if the state doesn't defend it, it's just tossing in the towel. >> the judges are also reviewing the merits of the case, whether prop 8 violates the constitutional right of gays and lesbians. >> this proposition marginalized and stripped over a million gay and lesbian californians of access to what the supreme court of the united

now argues it is time to legalize all drugs within a strict system of regulation. >> we should stops the -- thinking we can deal with it from a law and order point of view. we need to get people into treatment. they need to have prescriptions. doctors and pharmacists should it become the suppliers. >> he wants the government to debate of policy options, continuing the policy of prohibition, decriminalizing possession of drugs or, his preferred option, legally regulating production and supply. >> we don't think legalization is the answer because it ignores what people actually get addicted to judge -- drugs and the first place. a number of complicated factors. some are into generation and some related to issues of homelessness and mental-health. therefore to suggest that in some way legalization is the magic bullet, it is not. >> he may be out of tune with government and public opinion on drugs but he points out that only eight years ago david cameron urged the government to at least consider legalization, saying the war on drugs had been tried and have not worked. >> that is almost i