Consulting Constitutional Scholars on both sides of the issue take a position on the issue of domestic surveillance without FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) authorization. Be sure to respond to the strongest arguments against your position. Here is a description of this matter from the lecture: Secret Executive Orders to By-Pass Normal Constraints on Surveillance: Under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and various Supreme Court Decisions (e.g. Katz v. US) electronic surveillance of people in the US requires a warrant issued by a Judge under & amp;quot;probable cause & amp;quot; that a crime has been committed. However, Congress realized a decade ago that surveillance of espionage and terrorism cases should require a much lower burden of proof and higher secrecy before a warrant could be issued, so Congress created the so-called & amp;quot;FISA & amp;quot; court to be used to make the decision on warrants for espionage and terrorism cases. In 2005, the New York Times disclosed that the Bush administration was by-passing the FISA court and conducting electronic surveillance when one party was in the US and another party in suspect areas (e .g Pakistan). The press also disclosed the Bush administration had pressured phone companies for data on custom use patterns, again without a warrant or probable cause against individuals. In Summer 2006, the New York Times disclosed that the Bush administration was gathering information on international banking records. All parties agreed that the practice of international banking practices is legal. The Bush administration vehemently argued that the disclosures by the New York Times and others, arguing that they compromised national security by disclosing intelligence methods to Al Qaeda. Subsequently, some republican Congressmen pressed for an Congressional investigation of such & amp;quot;treasonous & amp;quot; press disclosures. On the other side, former NSC Terrorism Expert Richard Clarke, argued that the New York Times disclosures did not disclose state secrets because Al Qaeda operatives had long ago become aware that their phone conversations and banking transactions were under surveillance and had altered their practices accordingly. The controversy between defenders of Presidential surveillance power is likely to brew at least until the 2008 Presidential election. I will need at least 2 sources taken from the internet