Paul Clement Is Incorrectly Interpreting the Constitution

Paul Clement's brief attacking the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional is riddled with misrepresentations of precedent and inaccurate descriptions of what our Constitution says.

Part of a Series

Idea of the Day

Idea of the Day

The legal case against the Affordable Care Act has, in the words of conservative Judge Laurence Silberman, no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” Nevertheless, the plaintiffs challenging this law have hired a very skilled attorney—former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—and Clement clearly believes he is so skilled that he can pull a fast one on the justices of the Supreme Court. His brief attacking the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional is riddled with misrepresentations of precedent and inaccurate descriptions of what our Constitution says.

CAP’s Ian Millhiser gives three key examples of Clement’s attempt to replace the U.S. Constitution with something completely different.

For more on this topic, please see:

Paul Clement’s Fake Constitution by Ian Millhiser

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.