About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


102 Va. L. Rev. 687 (2016)
Necessary and Proper and Cruel and Unusual: Hendiadys in the Constitution

handle is hein.journals/valr102 and id is 697 raw text is: NECESSARY AND PROPER AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: HENDIADYS IN THE CONSTITUTION Samuel L. Bray* INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 688 I. How HENDIADYS W ORKS............................................................... 695 II. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL................................................................. 706 A. The Modern Trend to Read the Terms as Separate Requirements ........................................................................... 706 B. Textual Difficulties with Reading the Terms as Separate Requirements ........................................................................... 709 C. Reading Cruel and Unusual as a Hendiadys ......................712 III. NECESSARY AND PROPER ............................................................ 720 A. The Modern Trend to Read the Terms as Separate Requirements ........................................................................... 720 B. Revisiting the Evidence for Two Requirements .......................726 C. Reading Necessary and Proper as a Hendiadys .................732 D. New Light on Three Puzzles .................................................... 740 E. How Many Things Is It Proper for Proper To Do? ............746 F. Implications for Judicial Enforcement ....................................751 G. Testing the Hypothesis: Two Case Studies from Marshall's Defense of McCulloch ............................................................. 757 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 761 Unfortunately, no one, including the constitutional framers, knows the point of the phrase 'necessary and proper.' Those who object to the [Necessary and Proper Clause] as a part of the Constitution, ... have they considered whether a bet- ter form could have been substituted?2 *Assistant Professor, UCLA School of Law. I am grateful for the criticisms and comments of Will Baude, Jud Campbell, Nathan Chapman, Beth Colgan, Marc DeGirolami, Sharon Dolovich, Stephen Gardbaum, Philip Hamburger, David Hershenov, Allison Hoffman, Al- bertus Horsting, Joshua Jensen, Andy Kelly, Gary Lawson, Daniel Lowenstein, Michael McConnell, Hashim Mooppan, Michael Moreland, Robert Natelson, Zachary Price, Richard Re, Stephen Sachs, Steve Smith, John Stinneford, Eugene Volokh, Adam Winkler, and par- ticipants in law faculty workshops at Berkeley, Notre Dame, and UCLA. 1 Mark A. Graber, Unnecessary and Unintelligible, 12 Const. Comment. 167, 168 (1995). 2 The Federalist No. 44, at 299, 303 (James Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 687