Talk:United States v. Enmons

Controversy
In the controversy section there are two completely opposite and conflicting statements. It is the duty of an encyclopedia to present facts and present opinions and to make each clear as to which is which. Both of the positions in the section are stated as fact, thus one of them can not be true since there is only one truth, logically it must be one or the other. I would suggest rewording the section to make it more clear that either one is correct and the other is opinion or reword it to make it clear that both are opinion. I would tend to give more credence to the Cato Institute since they have many many people who work on their reports rather than just one or two like a law opinion article that is being quoted. In reading the original work that is quoted I see several problems with the article. I also see that there is absolutely no link to it to verify the quote as well, which is needed badly. Without a link this is an unsubstantiated quote that people can not verify themselves and smacks of original research rather than quoting reliable sources. Tjung (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cato Institute has an interest in providing biased commentary, and a track record of doing so. Their track record as of the decades leading up to 2013 suggests that Cato Institute claims cannot be treated as factual without independent corroboration, and cannot be used to corroborate other evidence. 66.168.19.165 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)