Constitution Coloring Book Images Exploration V3.0
Links to video guides for this assessment (must watch)
>>> CCB Terms Explore Assessment V3.0 How to Post video <<<
>>> CCB Terms Explore Assessment V2.0 How to video <<<
Your task is to explore a topic from the list below and:
Possible topics for exploration: (let me know if you have other ideas)
Three Strikes Laws
Electoral College
Death Penalty
Equal Protection
Right to Bear Arms
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of Assembly
Prohibition
Search & Seizure
States’ Rights
Miranda Rights
Double Jeopardy
Referendums
Pardons
Elastic Clause
Life Terms for Federal Judges
Impeachment
Term Limits
Super PACs
Eminent Domain
1) Use at least three sources to create and relate at least five facts to your
topic.
2) Informally demonstrate to me your understanding of what your topic is about
and how it might affect society.
3) Follow the posting format to create a post that communicates a claim related
to your topic.
4) Follow the posting format to create a counter post that challenges a peer
post.
Scoring:
Score |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Guidelines |
use three or more sources to demonstrate understanding of related facts |
AND demonstrate understanding of term as a concept |
AND communicate understanding of term as a concept |
AND |
Resources for Scores 1 and 2:
Internet queries for information
Paper and Pen(cil) for record keeping
Resources for Score 3:
Link to CCB v3.0 Threaded
Chat Space (posts not placed in the appropriate thread will be deleted—refer
to the task video or ask if you need assistance)
>>> CCB Terms Explore Assessment V3.0 How to Post video <<<
Here is the format to use for Score 3:
TOPIC:
DEFINITION:
CLAIM:
FOR SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
1) ACCURACY: # STARS –
2) DEPTH: #
STARS –
3) BIAS: # STARS –
4) DESCRIPTION:
5) SUPPORT:
5) SUPPORT:
FOR SOURCE 2: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
1) ACCURACY: # STARS –
2) DEPTH: # STARS –
3) BIAS: # STARS –
4) DESCRIPTION:
5) SUPPORT:
AGAINST SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
1) ACCURACY: # STARS -
2) DEPTH: # STARS –
3) BIAS: # STARS –
4) DESCRIPTION:
5) AGAINST SUPPORT:
REASONING: (1+ paragraph detailing your
arguments and evidence)
TOPIC: Eminent Domain
DEFINITION: Eminent Domain is the power of the
government to force the owner of land to sell it to the government for public
use—the government can make you sell them your land (and anything on it) if it
will be used for the good of the community.
CLAIM:
Eminent Domain is a good idea because it stops people from blocking
projects that would be good for their community.
FOR SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale.html
1) ACCURACY: 5 STARS –
The information is accurate and provides both sides of the specific case.
2) DEPTH: 4
STARS – All the
basic details of the case are covered and there is some connection to broader
issues. There is also enough
information to make it possible to look deeper into this case or search for
similar ones.
3) BIAS: 2 STARS –
The source is likely intended as an anti-Eminent Domain argument but it
also provides some support for the ways the outcome of the case will have a
positive impact on society as a whole.
4) DESCRIPTION:
This source presents a specific case involving Eminent Domain in Colorado and it
includes background information and the views of people on both sides of the
issue.
5) SUPPORT: The
information includes evidence that Eminent Domain provides protections for the
general good of society in cases where individuals might not have the same
priority.
FOR SOURCE 2: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/positive-negative-effects-eminent-domain-49409.html
1) ACCURACY: 3 STARS –
The information is accurate but it is very basic and general which means it does
not tell the viewer very much about individual cases involving Eminent Domain.
2) DEPTH: 2 STARS –
There is not enough depth to really understand the issue from a benefits for
society or loss of land perspective.
3) BIAS: 4 STARS –
There is no obvious bias in the content.
The author is a business writer and he does not appear to take any
position on the issue. The sponsored
links involved home sales which makes sense because people looking at Eminent
Domain are likely to be selling their property.
4) DESCRIPTION:
This is a decent question and answer website.
It provides some general information about the process and the good and
bad of this government power.
5) SUPPORT: The
website supports my claim by presenting responses that show the good side of
Eminent Domain.
AGAINST SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
http://www.thorplaw.com/practice-areas/land-condemnation/kk
1) ACCURACY: 4 STARS -
The information on the website is accurate although it is from a North Carolina
law firm and eminent domain laws vary by
state.
2) DEPTH: 3 STARS –
There is very good basics of Eminent Domain content but not a great amount of
detail.
3) BIAS: 4 STARS –
This is a website for a law firm that you can hire to fight the government in
Eminent Domain cases but there presentation of the facts is neutral.
Provide the url for your information along with a statement of your rating of
the site in terms of:
4) DESCRIPTION:
This is a great website to get a basic introduction to Eminent Domain that you
can use to dig deeper into the topic.
5) AGAINST SUPPORT:
This website ends with contact information for a law firm that will represent
landowners fighting Eminent Domain.
This shows that there are people against Eminent Domain and that there are legal
ways to fight the process.
REASONING: (1+ paragraph detailing your
arguments and evidence)
Eminent Domain is a useful way to accomplish things that are needed
for the good of society. The case
included in my example was decided in a way that will prevent damage to natural
areas and protect a beautiful nature area from development.
It is true that owners of land do not always like the process; however,
they have a right to hire lawyers to represent them and to have their case
decided in a court of law. The loss
of Eminent Domain would make it impossible to complete projects that are needed
in a community whenever any single person who owns land decides not to
participate.
CHALLENGED
SOURCE
URL:
Paste the url of the source you are challenging
SOURCE COMPLAINT:
Explain what you are challenging about the source.
REASON FOR REJECTING: Explain why you are challenging the source.
COUNTERPOST SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
1) ACCURACY: # STARS –
2) DEPTH: # STARS –
3) BIAS: # STARS –
4) DESCRIPTION:
5) SUPPORT:
REASONING: (1+ paragraph detailing your
arguments and evidence)
EXAMPLE COUNTERPOST:
CHALLENGED
SOURCE
URL:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/colo-eminent-domain-case-settled-with-115000-sale.html
SOURCE COMPLAINT:
REASON FOR REJECTING:
COUNTERPOST SOURCE 1: (1 - 5 scale with 5 being highest/best rating)
URL:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1215409/colorado-eminent-domain-case-settled-property-owners-lose-land/
1) ACCURACY: 4 STARS –
The information is accurate but there is some possibility the site is not
telling the whole story.
2) DEPTH: 4
STARS -
The
article provides additional details not included in the original article on this
case used in Mr. Wetzel's claim.
3) BIAS: 1 STAR – The source is very much against the use of Eminent
Domain in this case and offers a broad warning about the danger of this to all
landowners.
4) DESCRIPTION:
This source provides new information about what facts led to the use of Eminent
Domain, how the landowners were limited in their ability to fight the process,
and a warning to others that they might be
affected too.
5) SUPPORT: The
evidence here shows that Eminent Domain is sometimes used in cases that don't
have a broad public benefit and that it can be used against many landowners.
REASONING: Mr. Wetzel's claim that everything worked out well is not accurate. Two people bought a beautiful cabin to use as they chose and in a manner consistent with how it was used by the previous owner. Unless there is a major need for the land, the government should not be able to force them to sell it. If the government wants the land bad enough, it should have to pay whatever they want instead of being able to condemn the cabin and force them to sell. The bigger issue here is the abuse of government power and the inability of the individual citizen to fight the process. Individual citizens do not have the money or knowledge of the government and the final decision is made by government courts.