I have business law powerpoint presenation

YES: U.S. Department of Justice, from "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President" (United States Department of Justice, January 19, 2006)

NO: Letter to Congress, from "14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys to Congressional Leaders" (January 2, 2006)

The Department of Justice argues that the Constitution gives the President the right to engage in electronic surveillance, with or without congressional approval or judicial oversight. It further claims that the National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program ordered by President Bush does not violate federal law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), because such surveillance falls under the auspices of the military response to the 9/11 attacks, which was authorized by Congress. Several lawyers with expertise in constitutional law or experience in the federal government argue that the NSA wiretapping program violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They further argue that the President does not have any inherent authority either to engage in warrantless wiretapping or to violate federal law that limits such surveillance.

Issue 3: Is a Dog Sniffing for Drugs Outside a Home a Search Prohibited by the Fourth Amendment?

YES: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, Florida v. Jardines" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 26, 2013)

NO: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., from "Dissenting Opinion, Florida v. Jardines" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 26, 2013)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia finds that it is a search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment when police obtain evidence by allowing a trained dog to physically enter and occupy an area outside a home in which permission has not been obtained from the home owner. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito disagrees that there was a trespass here or that the dog sniff could be considered an invasion of any reasonable expectation of privacy given that one can expect that odors will float outside of a house.

Issue 4: Is There a Constitutional Right to Possess a Firearm for Private Use?

YES: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008)

NO: John Paul Stevens, from "Dissenting Opinion, District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that the Second Amendment protects the right of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a previous case, United States v. Miller, held that the Second Amendment did not protect the right of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense.

Issue 5: Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit the Police from Collecting a DNA Sample from a Person Arrested, but Not Yet Convicted on Felony Charges?

YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Maryland v. King" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 3, 2013)

NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Maryland v. King" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 3, 2013)

Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that using a cheek swab to collect a person's DNA during post-arrest processing is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment because it is predominantly used to confirm the identity of the arrestee. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that DNA collection at the time of arrest is an unreasonable search because the arrestee's DNA profile is predominantly used to investigate unrelated crimes.

Issue 6: Is It Unconstitutional for States to Imprison Undocumented Immigrants?

YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Opinion of the Court, Arizona v. United States" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012)

NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Arizona v. United States" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012)

Justice Anthony Kennedy argues that a recent state law making it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona impinges on the U.S. federal government's authority to regulate immigration. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that it is not unconstitutional for a state to supplement U.S. federal immigration law with its own, harsher penalties for illegal immigration.