THE ORIGINS OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER
CLAUSE
by Gary Lawson, Geoffrey P. Miller, Robert G. Natelson, and Guy I. Seidman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
This is a curious book and,
yet, a successful book. While the chapters that make up the book are written by
different authors or sets of authors, and identified as such, the introduction
makes a plea that this work be treated as a book and not an edited collection
of essays. This plea gave me pause, but the three lines of research that began
independently of one another do more or less come together to form a book. And
the claim of Gary Lawson, Geoffrey P. Miller, Robert C. Natelson,
and Guy I. Seidman is that the principle of fiduciary responsibility found in
administrative law, the private law of agency, and corporate law can help us
make sense of the “necessary and proper clause.”
As it happens, this is also a timely book. The necessary and proper clause has
once again become central to debates about Congressional power – particularly
with regard to health care reform. Indeed, if it was thought that Congress
could easily reach health care under a broad reading of its power to regulate
interstate commerce, scholars have shown that many of the most expansive
readings of Congress’s power under the commerce clause, such as WICKARD
v. FILBURN and GONZALES v. RAICH, are in fact best
understood as rooted in the necessary and proper clause. Just how this clause
ought to be understood, then, has become a pressing constitutional question.
The necessary and proper clause is often thought to have obscure origins.
Almost nothing gets said about it at the Constitutional Convention, though it
was the subject of much discussion in the ratifying debates. Added by the
Committee of Detail, its precise language has often been obscure. It has even
been referred to, in a somewhat overwrought manner, as a “constitutional
stupidity.” This head scratching is not without cause. And yet one does wonder
if this is an overly academic exercise in head scratching. After all, Chief
Justice John Marshall’s opinion in MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND offered a
fairly powerful – if commonsensical – understanding of the clause that drew in
part on Alexander Hamilton’s interpretation of the clause in the debates over
the first National Bank in 1791. As Marshall argued, “But the argument which
most conclusively demonstrates the error of the construction contended for by
the counsel for the State of Maryland, is founded on the intention of the
Convention, as manifested in the whole clause. To waste time and argument in
proving that, without it, Congress might carry its powers into execution, would
be not much less idle than to hold a lighted taper to the sun. As little can it
be required to prove, that in the absence of this clause, Congress would have
some choice of means. That it might employ those which, in its judgment, would
most advantageously effect the object to be accomplished. That any means
adapted to the end, any means which tended directly to the execution of the
constitutional powers of the government, were in themselves constitutional.” (MCCULLOCH,
at 419)
According to Marshall, the clause was thus neither expansive
nor contractive of Congressional power. It was, rather, a clause that sought to
clarify. Joseph Story echoed this point in his COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES when he insisted “the constitutional operation of
the government would be precisely the same if the clause were obliterated” (432).
Why, then, have the clause? It made clear that Congress would have the power to
carry out the ends entrusted to it. But this did not mean Congress could do
anything it chose to do. If the necessary and proper clause has often been
referred to as the “elastic clause,” or the “sweeping clause” because it
recognized incidental powers, this did not necessarily entail casting off all
limits to its scope. And yet the relationship between necessary and proper has
often been unclear. “Daniel Webster, in his brief to the Supreme Court in MCCULLOCH
v. MARYLAND, suggested the justices should simply give up trying to
make sense of the relevant terms: ‘these words, necessary and proper, . . . are
probably to be considered as synonymous’” (154). There is great value in this
volume as it elucidates the distinction between these words, illustrating the
historical roots of the language of necessary and proper to reveal a coherent
logic behind the phrase.
THE
ORIGINS OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE begins with a sweeping
survey of British statutes from the eighteenth century that granted power to
illustrate, essentially, that they had little influence on American practice.
Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman conclude that American practice is an “ocean apart”
from British practice. The larger point of this preliminary and thorough
analysis is to demonstrate “a care in drafting” statutes and constitutions in
America that did not clearly exist across the ocean (47). This also reveals
that “language mattered” and those who first interpreted the necessary and
proper clause – Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John
Marshall – all acted “on that assumption” (51). This leads the authors to
conclude that the American Constitution “was a carefully constructed
instrument” (51). This being so, the authors turn in a more focused manner to
the riddle of “necessary” and “proper.”
In this effort, Lawson and Seidman, writing together, and Robert Natelson, writing separately, turn to agency law and the
principle of fiduciary trust. The historical examination of public agency law
is original, interesting, and compelling. Lawson, Seidman, and Natelson demonstrate a clear connection between public
agency law and how we might best understand the necessary and proper clause.
The fiduciary ideal was prominent in eighteenth century Whig philosophy (and
earlier) and insisted that government had a fiduciary obligation to properly
manage what it had been entrusted with by the people. If this required an
obligation for the government to remain within the authority granted, the
authority also included incidental powers (57).
Turning to the drafting of the Constitution, Natelson
argues that members of the Convention had not only been exposed to the ideal of
fiduciary trust, but tended to think of government in terms of agency. This may
be particularly so of the Committee of Detail as all but one of its members
were lawyers. The crucial aspect of this analysis is that “proper” was not
simply thrown in as a reiteration of “necessary.” As Natelson
argues, “The word ‘necessary’ was inserted into the proposed Constitution to
communicate that Congress would enjoy incidental powers. The separate insertion
of the word ‘proper’ strongly suggests it had a meaning separate from
necessary, and almost certainly a restrictive one” (93). And, in this case,
proper was a reference to Congress’ fiduciary responsibilities. Thus even if it
had implied powers, it needed to exercise them in a manner consistent with its
delegation of powers – that is, in a “proper” fashion.
As James Wilson argued at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, the clause
referred to the enumerated powers and granted Congress inherent powers to carry
into effect its enumerated powers, not to legislate in general. Thus Congress
could do things that were necessary and proper to carrying out its enumerated
powers. Wilson’s argument – and others mustered by Federalists against the
Anti-Federalist’s attacks on the “sweeping clause” – squares with the notion of
Congress as exercising a fiduciary grant of power from the people and therefore
bound by its terms. In Federalist, No. 33 Hamilton insisted
the necessary and proper clause was a rule of construction, not itself a grant
of power. Hamilton’s explanation suggested that a choice of means must by both
necessary and proper (p.100). Madison would reiterate this argument in Federalist,
No. 44 and at the Virginia ratifying debates put it specifically in terms of
agency. James Iredell, who would later by appointed to the Supreme Court,
similarly echoed this understanding, as did a number of other defenders of the
Constitution. In fact, this included Edmund Randolph who, at the convention,
had expressed reservations about the clause. Yet at the Virginia ratifying
debates he insisted that the clause spoke to power already granted (105).
Natelson thus mount an impressive historical case
that the principles of agency law and fiduciary trust can help us better
understand the necessary and proper clause. Lawson and Seidman push the
implications of this understanding in arguing that agency law further suggests
that Congress’ power under the clause is limited to “principles of
reasonableness” (121). Of course, this has been a much vexed standard within
American constitutional law. Yet Lawson and Seidman seek to give this standard
solid grounding by turning from agency law to administrative law. Here again
they make a compelling case that private agency law parallels the public law
and its principle of reasonableness. The crux of the argument is again to
illustrate that even while the necessary and proper clause gives inherent powers,
Congress is not the sole judge of the limits of [*138] inherent powers. Indeed,
much like agency law, the principle of reasonableness requires that Congress
exercise its powers based on its original grant of power. Situated within the
structure of the Constitution, this means that the other branches of government
have a role to play in holding Congress within its limits even when it acts
under the necessary and proper clause.
This is further drawn out by Geoffrey Miller’s turning to the corporate law background.
If the Constitution is often thought of as a sort of contract, this is given
detail in examining the Constitution as a corporate charter. Given the textual
language of the clause, it might be seen to derive not just from agency
principles in general, but from a specific application of those principles –
that is, corporate charters (146). Miller’s independent line of research in the
corporate law background of the necessary and proper clause comes to reinforce
the logic of public agency law in understanding the necessary and proper
clause. And the key, again, is that the clause does not convey independent
authority, but confines it to the terms of the charter. And, perhaps most
importantly, it does not leave the judgment wholly to Congress as to the
exercise of its power, but allows another – the Supreme Court – to check
Congress’s grant of power (159).
Drawing on private law, the authors make a powerful case for its influence on
our understanding of the public law of the Constitution. It is an impressive
historical and logical case, which gets reinforced from different perspectives
– the private law of agency, and in particular corporate law, as well as the
common law and administrative law – that are seen to be manifest in interesting
ways in our fundamental public law. While much of this work situates historical
debates in a more familiar way, it is interesting to see the parallels that
have so long gone unnoticed. And it is difficult not to conclude these various
aspects of law had an influence on the drafting of the American Constitution
and the necessary and proper clause. This alone should make THE
ORIGINS OF THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE an important work of
interest to constitutional scholars and legal historians. The book, however, is
also a provocative challenge to the mid twentieth century understandings of the
necessary and proper clause. This is certainly not the aim of the work, but in
challenging the conventional wisdom it makes a valuable contribution to our
understanding of the American Constitution. Yet here the authors reveal a
possible split. Some are clearly wed to a form of originalism (Lawson, Natelson, and Seidman), while at least one of them seems
ambivalent on this score (Miller). Still, whatever one's interpretive framework,
this book will be of wide ranging interest.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:
Story, Joseph. 1987. COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.