the only legal use on the record is a legal use. that's how they advertise. >> okay. i better stop using non-conforming in my disclosures for now on. >> how does interpreting an illegal use. how does that work with this code intention? >> i think the issue is reading part one and two. the intent is saying that if you have a space that was last occupied by a basic sale or service, we don't want that converted to a bar or restaurant. >> it was never that that's why i'm having difficulty because it was never that. >> the only other legal use on that record, this is a fairly unique case, but it does have a cfc and the legal authorized use as a building is a retail use. we approved it as a retail use and that's what it received the authorization to be. that's where our starting point. >> but, i think we are all acknowledging, you are acknowledging that it was never that. it was never a retail space in actuality? >> the appellant has surmised that it was a roust from a very beginning. they wanted to have a factory and put a couple permits through. the one that said retail f

the last use. so whether that be legal or illegal. so my concern is that applying that standard of saying, went, the last use was illegal, so, we are going to say that you can put a restaurant in that location. >> but that illegal use was going on for decades. it's not that they did an illegal use to get around the current zoning controls. >> i believe the history of this, the appellant is you are surmises that they allow the factually to be illegally created and that operated illegally but my appellant says we should be interpreting this as the last use regard. >> thank you. i get it. >> just to follow up, isn't the abandonment issue, does that almost trump everything else? >> it could. we were looking at this and thought it was a reasonable application to look at the law and go back to the last legal use because the history here is so convoluted and we are going to go back to what's on the c f c. but a secondary argued that says in paragraph two, it refers to non-conforming uses if a principle service, then you can't go back in that

what is the legal justification? tor durbin said ours is a democratic society where the rule of law prevails. do overseas drone strikes as they're carried out now violate the rule of law that we all grew up with? >> there is a difference of opinion on that. most believe that it was that resolution the 2001 resolution that gave then president bush, now president obama the broad authority to use force any time, any place anywhere if he or she deems it's connected to 9/11. that was you such a blank check that it's scary to think first of all how it's been used and how it could be used in the future. that's primarily the understanding that many of us have that they're using as the legal justification. that is just down right wrong. we never have debated the use of drones to engage in targeted killing. >> john: congresswoman i commend you on this action of this issue. i would never ask to you speculate or go inside the president's head but do you think he's aware of the damage this program has already doing to his legacy?

this is yourem verified by the american government as being legally in the united states and legally able to vote. if the employer hire someone who does not go through the system, the weight of the law should fall on them like never seen before. there should be penalties in jail sentences so we do not hire people and documented in the country ever again. upt will cost money to set the verification system. we are going to set it up. that guarantees the american people that they feel we are not fooling around edges going to legalize american -- 11 million people. >> the house group has been reticent only sunday at the christian science monitor. you're not even confirmed the existence of the group. you issued a joint statement. what changed? public?you now are you under pressure to come with a more conservative plan out of the house in order to move forward? >> i think you will find a more conservative plan coming out of the house. the majority are republicans. within the majority there are many members of the tea party. look at the a ray of people -- the array of people that often move

the border. people come in legally and overstay. i want to ask you you can you understand those who have seen this movie before who said the promises and assurance it's the last time that ever will have to happen. we're going institute enforcing law against people who come in legally but overstay the visa. it's never come to pass. can you appreciate the skepticism that people feel when they hear that again? mrs. lichter, go ahead. >> senator, thank you. look at it my way, first. then you can look tat a better way. [laughter] can you understand the skepticism? judge -- court only to find they didn't work as advertised? >> right. in order to avoid that sense of disenchant wment the new method going forward, i would like to draw your attention to what the real cause is of the overstay or the illegal entry. it is not for lack of enforcement. it is not for lack of attracting system. it's for lack of a lawful path where people who wish to change from their nonimmigrant stay us extend. -- >> when you come in on a thirty day visa, you don't

so the book kind of walks through the different arguments about legalization. and it's interesting that at the end of the book we have 15 chapters in the book, about 150 added to the collection ranging from what is marijuana to what is thc to how would you actually tax it? i worked with three other colleagues and we work together and we all agree on the kind if content of those first 15 chapters. in the last chapter of the book we actually include our opinions. we didn't plan it that we are all over the place on this. i don't want to spoil it but if you want to read my opinion it's in the back of the book. >> host: well, i read it. we will put up the phone numbers. this is "marijuana legalization" and we have divided their lives a little bit differently for this segment. pro-and anti-(202)585-3885 if you are in favor of legalizing marijuana and if you are are against it (202)585-3886 as the is the number for you to dial and the phone lines are too busy to get through you can also send beau kilmer a tweet @booktv's or twitter handle and you can make a comment on

the last measure to control immigration and create legal status for undocumented workers was the 1986 immigration reform and control act. that's 27 years ago. that law legalized 2.7 million aliens. 1 million of these legalized aliens went on to become citizens. the principal economic impact was to raise income for imup as much as 13%. the 1986 immigration amnesty, by the way, caused a wave of follow-on immigration of 400% surge from 2.7 million illegal aliens then to 11 million now. in the wake of the boston marathon bombings, the senate may the boston marathon bombings, the senate may not move as fast as president obama wants. question. will boston marathon bombing slow down the momentum of u.s. immigration policy and procedure reform, pat? >> it already has, john. but i believe the bill is going to pass the united states senate. so many people are out front on there. marco rubio is the key player for the republicans, is being bashed -- was being bashed by conservative talk-radio bosser this. i think he would like to pull back on it. what's going to happen is it's going to pass the s

practice that she remain in sterling also in washington we have charles stimson he is the chief of staff and senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation and in nashville we crossed him. he's an assistant professor of law at vanderbilt law school are german cross-talk rules and i think that means you can jump in anytime you want to thomas can you talk us through why did the hunger strike started getting and what's going on there at this moment with the hunger strike started because of some change in conditions actually the people running that camp changed and they changed some of the conditions a lot of the detainees felt that their coronas were being mishandled and they asked to give up the koran and when that didn't happen some went on strike now the strike is for a different reason i think it's really as the top generals said it's because of despair and they're devastated that bases are being closed that they're not getting hearings that more than half of the people have been cleared of any wrongdoing and they're still sitting there and they're desolate ok ok charles you want to weigh in their despe

expert in every single jurisdiction in the country but there are also many cases out there where the legality is being seriously question certainly so you know we've seen the federal government use these drones and patrolling borders in mexico and canada we're placing essentially border agents on the ground we've seen now so use drones you know tracking storms and such do you can you offer us any alternative that the state could possibly be using other than these drones which have serious privacy concerns attached to them or you know kind of keeping the safety issue that we expect from the federal government in play without violating privacy are there are i guess my question is are there other alternatives where you could i suppose one way to do it would be put more boots on the ground on the borders to keep them secure but i don't think that's actually absolutely necessary you could use drones to patrol borders if there's very strong legal framework that makes sure that there isn't any data being retained all that weapons on being used so i think the way to address this is that we perhaps wi

the right approach. i think people can and should get competent legal help from licensed attorneys. we can use technology to make that more affordable and simpler for them. that was a corner stone. we got a patent on a process that vovrs the lawyers in it from day one. it's been really fun to see lawyers embrace this way of practicing law online. >> that's really the business model, isn't it? it's the up sale, $10 legitimate will. if you're happy with that, fantastic. now that i've got you under the tent, if you'd like some legal help, click here and i'm not saying it's hidden or anything but that's the up sale much like evernote says you can have a free account but if you'd like some extra features pay us $9 a month that would be great. that's fundamentally your business. >> it's to connect people with attorney, legal plans that are affordable for either family or increasingly for businesses because if you're in business you have legal issues. >> is there a document that i can't, you suggest i not produce through your service? is there a limit? >> you can. >> that's another great qu

i wasn't making the point that legal logistical political and diplomatic things had to come together in the first two years of the obama administration to be a smack down of the administration i was saying that to tom's point and i think each of our points that there is a matter you have to desegregate are separate the legal issues from the political issues but at the end of the day it takes political will not capital p. democrat republican small people little will to order the closure of guantanamo and remember president bush said near that in the last two years administration he wanted to move to close guantanamo and obama picked up on and signed that executive order so my point is simply there in that window he had to spend political small peak capital to get it done and it did just didn't happen for a variety of other reasons because he spends political capital elsewhere but you know i reviewed every single detainees file kuantan of them every single one when i was in the pentagon running detainees policy and you know as a former defense attorney and prosecutor i look at those ver

in the united states, legally eable to vote, and verified. and sell that to the employer and if the employer hires somebody that doesn't go through that verification system, i think the weight of the law should fall on them like never seen before. there should be penalties and there should be jail sentences so you don't hire people undocumented, illegally in this country ever again. that's going to cost money to set up that verification system. but let's just agree on this. we are going to set up such a verification system because that guarantees the american people that they feel we're not fooling around and we're not just -- we're going to legalize 11 million people without fixing the system. >> let me ask you about, your group, the house group, had been sort of reticent when we saw you at the "christian science monitor" breakfast a month ago, you said you wouldn't confirm the pistence of the group. >> i can't do that now. >> but you issued a joint statement yesterday system of what changed that you guys are able to con number that? why are

the first big celebration of legalized weed in colorado. what will this do to the efforts to make pot legal in other states?>>and buseof experienced snowboarders set off an avalanche. and why this is happening more frequently this year. i stepped on the machine, and it showed me the pressure points on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. i got my . my dr. scholl's custom fit orthotics number. now i'm a believer. you'll be a believer, too. learn where to find your number at drscholls.com. diarrhea, gas, bloating? yes! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. live the regular life. phillips'. live the regular life. see lioutdoors, or in.ight. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. visit your eyecare professional today to ask about our newest lenses, transitions vantage and transitions xtractive lenses. experience life well lit. as

the dropouts ar. half our legal, half >> social security, medicare, how will this law, if passed, impact the viability of those programs? social security now has a $7 trillion unfunded liability out there over the next 75 years. what will this do to it? thing to understand about social security is that it is partially redistributed with low income. what this bill does, by allowing the legal immigrants to stay, it adds lots of new claimants on the social security system who are low income. yes, we would hope that their wages would rise with legalization, but it does not change the underlying attainment of the immigrant, which is why it creates negative long-term implications, adding lots of low-income people to that system. you cannot fun but the welfare state and social services with low-income folks. it is that simple. it does not mean they're bad, evil, that did not work or that they came here to get welfare, but the reality on this chart is that there are very high rates of public use services from the less educa

pipeline was the legal regulatory you know i know they're taking they're using the fifth amendment take land on taxes of it what's going on well right now the keystone the northern route of the keystone x.l. pipeline is going through an environmental review process and i think it's important to note we're still very early on in that process the state department issued a draft environmental impact statement there were some good things in it and there were a lot of bad things in it we you know and i know bill can talk to the major climate emissions the keystone x.l. it's expected to drive industry analysts say that keystone x.l. is the linchpin for tar sands expansion and the other side of this is if i may interrupt you there i understand when the state department issued this report that one of the contractors they relied on heavily to write the report had actually had financial ties to trans canada or the keystone pipeline or something some can do you know about that and that also has to i can't go into much detail on that but i can say this is one of the challenges in the environmental

advocates in maryland say the bill doesn't go far enough and believe that a comprehensive bill on the legalization of marijuana for a variety of purposes should be put up for a referendum so what does the current bill include and could mayor want to be the next state to legalize marijuana altogether joining me now to talk more about marijuana policy in the united states is lynn lyman california state director of the drug policy alliance and here in the studio neill franklin executive director of law enforcement against prohibition when neil welcome thanks so thanks for having us. hey lynn how you have you old friends here yes we are going to start with you just what does this bill do house it is different is it similar to other medical marijuana bills that we've seen passed around the country and could it be a first step to. maybe doing something that like colorado and washington are doing in legalizing it all together sam it is different. it's better than what we had of course but this is we're asking for institutions like maybe johns hopkins and maybe some other institutions to step forward and

as long as the guest worker program was there, people crossed legally, not illegally. the most important thing you can do to reduce illegal entry is to have a serious grown up robust guest worker program and the way for people to get here legally to do work that needs to be done with willing employers and workers. then you only have to worry at the border about bad guys. >> i agree with that last comment. i agree head people will become your work that having a legal system for them to do so is important. i don't think that will deter the drug traffickers and human traffickers and other people who dealing contraband. >> it frees up the officers at the border to focus on bad guys instead of trying to go after people coming here to work. they would have a legal way to come here and work. that is what happened when eisenhower did it. eisenhower had a big success there. when the federal government does something well, it is kind of rare. >> it is good to see you again. i have a question about the provision of legislation. i'm not sure how many of you have had a chance to rea

by the way, people that do not have a right to be here legally. no one has a right to violate the immigration laws of the united states. on the other hand, the decisions that created that problem were made in 1985 and in 1986 when i remind people that i was in ninth grade. and as a policy-maker, what i now confront is this reality that we have 10 million, 11 million human beings living in the united states in violation of our immigration laws. and to add to that, most of these people have been here for more than a decade. they have children that are u.s. citizens, they may even own property. they work. they're here. and they're never going to go back. so we have to deal with that fundamental reality as well. with all of that in mind, is how i decided to get involved in this immigration reform debate. let me explain, there is really very little political benefit to this issue. believe me. number one, i would rather be on the floor debating issues like taxes and the debt and the impediment they play on our economy and its growth. this is also an impo

the bill. legalization begins with the southern border security and fencing. the undocumented become legal. once the secretary certifies that the fencing plans are deployed and completed, green cards are allocated to those here illegally. agricultural workers are put on a different path. if enacted today, the bill would put no pressure on this secretary to secure the borders. you have stated the border is stronger than ever before. you have indicated that congress should not hold up legalization by holding up border security measures. and requiring them to be a trigger for the program. every senator on the subject has said borders must be secured. short of that, this bill makes the same mistake that we made in 1986. surely we do not want to screw up like we did 25 years ago. i'm interested in hearing about what problems the build fixes in our current immigration system. the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? i'm concerned the bill provides authority to you and your department and your successors on almost every other page there is a language or the secretary to wa

and the legal representation starts in most cases the first 3 days of the involuntary hold during the initial psychiatric evaluation and then the legal representation also continues with if the person is asked to be stayed or referred for further treatment up to 14 days. during this phase, the attorneys will represent the clients about whether or not they will have to stay on this hold, whether they have to take medications. if a person after at the end of the 14 day hold is found that may need further treatment, the person maybe subject to a conservatorship under the act of the conservator in the california constitution code and representation continues and after an initial established conservatorship such as objection to the conservatorship and also propose medical and psychiatric treatment. one of the things that in san francisco that is up to 2012 we are one of the three counties that consistently offers judicial review when there is a recommendation to take away someone's right to refuse medications. the law requires that anyone even in involuntary commit a person the right to re

. >> used to be most americans opposed the legalization of marijuana. new poll shows majority supports putting pot in the marketplace. why the turn around? we will tell you. >> i'm just waiting for them to come in here and kill us. >> bill: is detroit the worst city in the u.s.a.? because it refuses to consider anything other than the democratic party. jesse watters on the case. >> how bad is it? >> it's bad. >> yeah? >> it's bad. >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone, the factor begins right now. >> bill: i'm, i'm bill o'reilly, thanks for watching us tonight. the far left running wild once again. it that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. if the tea party has interrupted anyone's speech lately, shouting down a liberal person, for example, i have not heard about it. if college students are being indoctrinated and intimidated by conservative professors, i have not heard about it. but, on the other side, the far left is becoming increasingly bold and fresh in trying to silence those with whom they disagree. last night we t

it's about the legal framework that we think we're operating in. i'm not worried about the police using drone strikes against criminal suspects because we have a pretty ro dust legal framework about when and under what circumstances the police can use force. the problem as michael say is when you have this totally mushy legal framework that says aha!, whenever we unaccepted persons in ot bama administration, i used to be in the obama administration so i have a lot of sympathy for them but whenever an unspecified person in the obama administration decides that you, bob smith or whoever it is in fact a combatant in the war on al qaeda and its associates, a pretty murky concept itself, that suddenly we're no longer in the land of constitutional law, we're no longer in the land of ode protections. the law of war governs and poof all bets are off and anything can happen. and it's really kind of irrelevant if we think we can kill that person once we say they are a combatant by bopping them on the head with a plank versus a drone strike is irrelevant. the

will the new leader -- the new legal guest worker program be effective? will the -- will they be able to compete when growing the economy? will the american worfotry coir? wi we incentivize people to come here legally and leave once their visas expired? these are questions i have. in regard to border security, security is what is the basis of the sovereignty of any nation. we have independent authority over our -- we must have independent authority over our borders. thank you. thank you, we will hear first from arturo rodriguez, who served as the president of united farm workers since 1993 and has spent much of his life looking to establish their working conditions for agricultural workers in the western united states. he is no stranger to this committee. center -- senator feinstein has worked so hard on these matters, as he has spoken of a great deal. please go ahead. >> i asked that senator cornyn e mites, he was not here on friday and is a ranking republican on the subcommittee. >> i would ask that he take that during his question time. i know that you

also in new york the city is opening up its wallet after losing a legal battle with activist group occupy wall street and the charges that the city violated the act of a civil rights when they cleared out the group's encampment in zuccotti park back in two thousand and eleven and the solomon orders new york to pay the group over two hundred thirty thousand dollars in damages legal fees and that's including a forty seven thousand dollars physical damages including an area known as the people's library now that's the fifty five hundred book collection that was taken down largely destroyed with law enforcement raided the park the city initially denied destroying those books charging it was brookfield properties and stood owns the park however the court did not agree the court stated defendants a good knowledge and believe it is unfortunate that during the course of clearing zuccotti park nov fifteenth twenty eleven books were damaged so as to render them unusable and additional books are unaccounted for now for their part movements of the occupy movement are so pleased with the outcome expre

answer is the president is elected by the people and accountable to them. his legal and policy advisers are chosen just like a federal judge, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. if the senate is not satisfied that a nominee for a legal position in the national security elements of our government will provide independent advice and follow the rule of law, it should exercise its prerogative to withhold its advice and consent. these days the senate bill is the confirmation of a presidential nominee for a lot less. i am confident that the man reelected to be president for the next of lawyers, barack obama, is sensitive to these issues. i also have a lot of faith in the new cia director john brennan, who happens to be an alumnus of this university. over the first of all your years of the administration, i probably sat with him through some where between 50 and 100 situational meetings. i believe i know his mind and his values. in my opinion, john brennan embodies what the president talked about when he says that aggressive counterterrorism policies, th

or the ones who have come here legally in the past. so i can't wait for the details of this to be available because i think people will find we've addressed that concern specifically and effectively. >> three years ago in a debate you were clear on this. you said to earn a pathway to citizenship you would have to leave this country if you were here illegally, go back home, and then you could come back in. you said an earned pathway was amnesty. yet you've changed your mind here. why? >> well, first of all, what i said throughout my campaign was that i was against a blanket amnesty and this is not blanket amnesty. this is not blanket anything. it's not amnesty because you pay serious consequenceses for having violated the law. third, we need to understand the existing law. the existing law does not prohibit someone from violating the immigration laws from getting a green card. it simply says you have to leave the united states and you have to wait ten years. what we have done is created an alte alternative to that that forces you to wai

if the cpr allows them to become legal the market for the taxis may totally tank. if you're going to put out 1 hundred and 20 cabs you'll cover it if the thing does tank. thank you very much >> (calling names). >> good afternoon. i'm from desoto cab. we absolutely believe that san francisco needs more taxis. we're glad to see this report. one thing i'm cautious of its a report it's not the entire story. i also want to point out that there are at least two apps in this city that are available to pretty much every cab company and the 3 major cab companies have successful apps so one thing to think about is the cab supply has an an issue but think about the cab prarpgsz because there's apps out and if you look at the data you'll be surprised. enforcement is important it's very port it's been neglected it's to be continued to be important. the operating a full serve of the cab company they need financial certain and some of that involves enforcement. the report suggests that the city needs on easy to manage and efficient industry and to empower i need to make sure the

people who come to the legal way. host: rebecca kaplan, a look at workers and visas. -- psych here the high school workers of the current versus proposed and agricultural workers. there will be no hard cap but no more than $337,000 would be allowed at any one time. the current is no hard cap and the proposed would be capped at $112,000 in the first year. and we look at low skilled workers and how that would played out. you talk about the higher worker range. give us more of a sense of both agriculture businesses as well as the communities are looking ent the low skilled anding a - and ag jobs? guest: it was being negotiated by representative for the growers and farm workers and they have the help of a couple of senators dug including dianne feinstein and marco rubioo to hammer out those deals. a lot of jobs that are not filled by americans lie housekeeping and hotels, construction industries and restaurants. they'll be able to get threar visas that can be renewed over three years and they will start with 20,000 which i