the petitioner was at the time laboring under political disability. and requesting relief, the second being a statement of loyalty and support for the active reconstruction. whether longer, more detailed communication regarding the history of private office, the prior oath taking of these individual petitioners was admitted to the state republican committee is difficult to know because none of the information actually reach the congressional committee that reviewed their petition. this sort of widespread confusion over the scope of the amendment prohibition was fueled by public officials interpretation of the text. in 1867 opinion attorney general stanton declared the prohibition applied only to state-level offices and not local offices. your sheriffs would be free. in the wake of a public reprimand stanton backpedaled, issuing a hastily drafted second opinion saying all of the executives or judicial officers of any state who took and oath were subject to disqualification. he included county officers. if they were required to take as part of their off

chief justice, we agree with petitioner's the law is unexceptional. those exceptions are based on the same longstanding traditional rationals that justify the sign ordinance as a hole. a wooden application of scrutiny in this context would suggest it's presumptively unconstitutional, for example for a town to limit signs on public property, but have an exception if you want to paint your street number on your curb. that doesn't make a great deal of practical sense. it's the ordinance this court upheld without specifically addressing this particular issue in taxpayers for vincent. on a theoretical level the normal reasons for deep judicial skepticism don't apply in the context of that street address perception, danger of safety signs or other types of perceptions that attract the normal safety and nonproliferation rationales for assigned regulation those kinds of exceptions don't create any inference that the government is attempting to favor one viewpoint or another, that it's trying to limit the set of ideas that are going to come into the public mar

in this case, there were 17 briefs filed for supporting the petitioner. and so there's a lot for the court to consider. now, the issue itself is an interesting one. i don't think it's as simple as sometimes the state gets to prohibit some kind of speech. why not -- it's a little bit of speech. we're talking here about political speech. a direct restriction on what candidates can say. it's the kind of speech that historically the supreme court has said the first amendment places the strictest limits on the government's ability to restrict what candidates can say. and the issue that the court isolated and made clear as a prevailing principle in the case that jim argued, was that if the state decides to have judicial elections, then it has a very limited ability to limit what candidates can say. it doesn't have to choose elections. the federal system is not based on elections. states have chosen most of them have, to elect their judges. and with that comes the constitutional right to be a candidate. and having made that decision it creates these really compl

the city attorney, regarding existing litigation in which the city as a plaintiff, defendant and petitioner and gas and electric company is an adverse party. >> all departments nice of you to join us, could you begin by introducing, we are missing somebody? >> okay. >> we are going to go into closed session. >> okay. >> and so, we have already. >> okay. thank you, we have taken general public comment for this particular item as i have announced when that we would take public comment in the time that we opened general public comment for item number 33. and so at this time, is there a motion to go into closed session? >> moved by supervisor kim, and seconded by supervisor kristin sen and without objection we are adjourned to closed session.

element addendum ems in defenseless of 2014 the report denied a champion to the 2004 and 9 eir petitioners in our case appealed the denial to the koirl that is still pending we're preceding with our own risk the questions should be directed to the city attorney and this is the city failed to put together the ceqa appeal and katherine pointed out out this section the code applies only to the modified project under the category assumption and section 1932 does noted talk about the environmental staff report the correct section for the 2014 housing element is 31.19 b it states the environmental review was it modified on the basis of the environmental review officer determines it is therefore to be in writing and no further evaluation shall be required her next comment they disagreed throughout the addendum that this will not generate new housing, however the city has the captain to meet the target without the need to rebltd build it will occur today without any policy changes does the 2014 housing element increase the policy but instead influences the affordable housing in her february figure

. >> reporter: and still paula davis says that she understands why the petitioners wants the shows canceled>> to see the public will's support has to be frustrating. >> the venue manager says that the protests have led to cancellations. there were over 500 tickets sold to those shows, and they rare in the process of refunding those tickets. >> two men are arrested in the killing of a killing of a san jose security guard. they are connected to the deadly shooting last weekend ax and now they are facing murder charges. security guard manny zuniga stepped in front of a woman in the line of fire. shots rang out as the suspect jumped into a waiting car, but the police expect to make more arrests in the case. >> and in oakland on 32 rnd 22nd and san pablo avenue, police say that the gold lexus took off running after the crash, and the surviving passenger is in the hospital tonight. >> a toddler and mother are in the hospital surviving the car. they were riding on a bicycle when a driver ran and hit them. >> i did not see the bicycle until they were air born. i saw three of them. the young laydy,

. >> we don't want anyone using the army of dead or the death of nisman petitioner political purposes. it should be debated at the blot box, not with the dead. >> the attack on the israeli embassy two years earlier in which 29 people were killed remain unsolved. the community has lived under tight security since then. while so many questions remain unanswered and justice still not done after the bomb that exploded here on this site nearly 21 years ago, the wounds remain unhealed. with this latest scandal the death of nisman, those wounds have reopened in argentina in general and the jewish community here. >> big fog in south korea is blamed for a massive motor way pileup. two were killed near the international airport. more than 100 vehicles were involved in multiple collisions. fog limited visibility to around 10 meters. to vietnam where a once filthy water way through the heart of ho chi minh city has been transfolder. the project which took a decade has made the city a mod el for improving infrastructure. we have a report. >> enjoying the air and the view was unthinkable when growi

. >> in my personal experience it seems that a lot of the vaccine petitioners get the vaccine at a pharmacyr somewhere where they can go in quickly get a vaccine and leave. >> journal of the american pharmacist association published an article last year outlining the danger and giving pharmacists tips on proper procedure including the ideal spot for an injection. >> this is affected every single as spec of my life. >> mistake could happen anywhere anywhere. raul got his shot at a hospital clinic. his case is still pending. >> not to be able to do the things i was able to do. because of a simple flu shot. it's horrible. it's horrible. >> health care workers who give any type of flu shot are supposed to have training. but the rules on how much and what that includes vary from state to state. i'm stephanie stahl cbs3 eyewitness news. >>> well the cold is here to stay through the rest of the month. and we are looking at a few systems moving our way. one will bring some snow showers. it will bring some snow to places that don't usually get it. take look outside and we'll check our current condit

it says, you can't search unless you have probable cause to search. >> well, petitioners rule would say that the hypothetical i propose is impermissible in every circumstance that even a 30 second extension of a short traffic stop is always unreasonable even if that stop falls within the amount of time it usually takes to do routine traffic stops. >> ms. anders? >> you know, i think i read it differently than you. here is what i think they agree with you on and doesn't. they agree that a dog sniff is definitely not part of a traffic stop. they definitely say that even though a dog sniff is not part of the mission of traffic stop, we're going to allow a dog sniff if it doesn't extend the traffic stop. if there are two officers and there's some other reason why you're not being detained a moment longer because of the dog sniff and cabales basically says sure, no harm no, foul on that one, but you're saying cabales gives you this extra leeway to detain people even though it is longer than an ordinary traffic stop would take. i think that's just not right. i mean i think that reasonableness

it says, you can't search unless you have probable cause to search. >> well, petitioners rule would say that the hypothetical i propose is impermissible in every circumstance that even a 30 second extension of a short traffic stop is always unreasonable even if that stop falls within the amount of time it usually takes to do routine traffic stops. >> ms. anders? i'm sorry. please. >> and the officer is reasonably diligent with respect to the traffic mission. >> you know, i think i read it differently than you. here is what i think the case agrees with you on and here is what it doesn't. it definitely agrees with you on that a dog sniff is not part of the traffic stop. so i think that you and the case are definitely in the same place there. and the case definitely says that even though a dog sniff is not part of the mission of the traffic stop, we're going to allow a dog sniff if the dog sniff doesn't extend the traffic stop. it's like there are two officers or there's some other reason, why you're not being detained a moment longer because of the dog sniff and that case basically says s

it is the petitioner who asked to identify which they are, and explain why alternatives wouldn't work. if someone is developing a blighted area, or a area subject to crime or something else, that's something they can do. that is a criteria that can't be substituted for something else. so i don't know why you keep saying this is going to affect private development. >> justice sotomayor, the court reserved the question whether disparate impact liability, in requiring race-based decision-making, would violate equal protection -- >> this is not race-based decision-making. are you saying that a 10% plan in colleges is race-based? it is an absolutely neutral policy that happens to address a need, which is to integrate schools. why is it wrong to have a neutral policy? none of the policies that were imposed here, and in most other cases. they are policies that are race-neutral but happen to have a better impact in terms of integration. >> i would disagree that it is race-neutral. disparities based on race are used -- and this has the potential to subordinate traditional -- >> which is not th

it reads, the williams children are heartbroken that petitioner mr. williams wife of less than three years, has acted against his wishes by challenging the plans he so carefully made for his estate. several pages detailing the items and their value have been redacted. but the kids argue, they're being blocked from going through their dad's things at the tiburon home even though appraiser have been allowed inside. robin williams died back in august from an apparent suicide. >> a hearing on the issue is scheduled for late march. in the newsroom, alyssa harrington, abc 7 news. >>> still ahead here on abc 7 news at 4:00, what's really a popular herbal supplement. not what you think. why one state is taking action. also -- >> a now that he's been charged, that's what i intend to do. >> some five decades after the release of the classic "to kill a mockingbird" word of a sequel. but not necessarily a new novel. >>> then the measles controversy at the nation's capitol making the outbreak a political issue. >>> at 4:12 our first check of the afternoon commute.

two months after the panel declined to charge the officer involved other petitioners are now seekingents unsealed. the nyclu argues disclosure is needed to, quote, restore public confidence in our criminal justice system and to inform the current debate that's begun regarding the role of the grand jury as an instrument of justice or injustice. however, the district attorney presided over the grand jury process daniel donovan is opposed to the release arguing that many of the witnesses same forward and testified with full assurances of secrecy. and joining me now is civil rights attorney john burres who handled several civil rights cases including the rodney king lawsuit. thanks so much for joining us. >> good morning. >> let's start here with what they are arguing. the nyclu, among oh, saying this will restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. what is your take here? >> well i think it's important for it to occur. i would agree with that position. i don't know that it restores confidence. it's just a window into the criminal justice system that i think everyone needs

one oddity i found is the question that the petitioners really wanted answer was, where could they go, what were the territorial rights, health market they go outside of the existing reach which is a question that the supreme court is clear that we the agency cannot grant a municipality authority over something that is a statement. otherwise you cannot operate the entire state which is something that is problematic and states have pushed back on and i suspect we we will see a challenge on. [inaudible question] >> they're have been a lot of fires to run back and forth over this debate. do you think that the well has been poisoned between you and the chairman's office? have rubicon's been crossed you and how this process has been carried out? will be show up next month and it will be football jokes and everyone smiling and happy? >> we never joke about football here. that is no laughing matter. but, look i have been consistent. i have been at this agency now for almost two and a half years, worked under multiple chairman's. every single month on every single issue i approach the item on

the petitioner raised the issues before us because they are operating state-of-the-art broadband networkservices to neighboring communities that are requesting it. on the screen, you will see where apb's network is located. as you will see, apb's network is an island of broadband service surroundeded by areas for the most part of single or no provider of advanced broadband. here on the screen again is wilson's network. as you can see it is a similar situation, island of comepetition with no equal broadband services. broadband are authorized to provide service in their states and like to expand their service to serve their neighbors in nearby communities. they cannot. in their petitions they asked us to prevent restrictive state laws that expand services in their expansion. they're willing and otherwise able to expand and their services are in high demand. epb, a+ municipal electric service provider deployeds at( gigabit per second broadband service in connection with a look grid. this has presented significant benefits to epb's service territory in including economic growth andc improveme