Richard Davies Parker

Last updated

Richard D. Parker
Born1945 (age 78–79)
Education Swarthmore College (BA)
Harvard University (LLB)
OccupationLaw professor
Years active1974–present
Known forConstitutional populism

Richard Davies Parker (born 1945 [1] ) is an American legal scholar who serves as the Paul W. Williams Professor of Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School, where he has taught constitutional law and criminal law since 1974. [2] He also serves as chairman of the Citizens Flag Alliance, [3] an American nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing a constitutional amendment that would protect the American flag against acts of physical desecration. [4]

Contents

Parker is best known as a proponent of constitutional populism, or the view that interpretation of the United States Constitution should conform to the values of the majority. He is the author of ''Here the People Rule": A Constitutional Populist Manifesto, in which he calls for a reorientation of constitutional law "to promote, not limit, the expression of ordinary political energy—thus to extend, rather than constrain, majority rule." [5]

Biography

Academic career

Parker graduated from Swarthmore College in 1967 [6] and Harvard Law School in 1970. [7] During his undergraduate years, he worked for New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy. [8] After graduating from Harvard, Parker clerked for Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1970 to 1971 [9] and Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court from 1971 to 1972.[ citation needed ] He subsequently worked as an attorney at the Children's Defense Fund and began teaching at Harvard Law School in 1974. [2]

Personal life

In January 2009, Parker, a mountain hiker, underwent surgery for cervical decompression and fusion, from which he awoke paralyzed with tetraplegia, partially a result of doctors’ failure to monitor electrical signals in his spine. [10] He chooses not to identify as disabled, but instead approaches his condition with patience, a rebellious mindset, and denial. [10]

Constitutional populism

Parker's constitutional populist legal philosophy is influenced by legal realism [11] and his experiences in the 1960s with the civil rights and Vietnam anti-war movements. [12] In 1981, his first major law review publication, The Past of Constitutional Theory—And its Future, appealed to members of his generation to reject prevailing justifications for judicial power, which he considered "self-imposed orthodoxy" in constitutional theory that produced a "conservative, apologetic orientation." [13] In its place, he envisioned for a political life "far more democratic" than conventional constitutional theory then sanctioned. Professor Lee Strang subsequently characterized this appeal as "arguably the first modern call for scholarship in the vein of popular constitutionalism." [14]

In 1994, Parker authored "Here the People Rule": A Constitutional Populist Manifesto, the book for which he is best known. [15] In it, he offers two competing "takes" on Thomas Mann’s politically-inspired novella Mario and the Magician , "Populist" and "Anti-Populist," to question the "sensibilities" of constitutional law, or assumptions about the attitudes and political energy of ordinary people. Parker contends that the Anti-Populist sensibility, which views the political energy of ordinary people as defective and potentially dangerous, prevails in conventional constitutional law discourse. This can be seen through a pretentious emphasis on methodology and abstract judicial reasoning that ultimately ensure the lack of participation by everyday citizens. [5] Parker then questions the suppositions that the majority's view rules in the United States and that the judiciary's role properly protects minorities from supposed majoritarian tyranny. He contends that an elite minority of judges control the bounds of constitutional discourse, threatening the majority's ability to make constitutional law. [16] His Populist alternative would see ordinary people "deflate" legal discourse of its appeals to "higher law" and instead center constitutional argumentation on "political controversy about democracy." [17] Rejecting judicial qualifications such as intellectual ability, scholarship, and technical proficiency, Parker contends that respect for the judiciary should depend upon judges’ ability to "speak to the ordinariness in others," concluding that "ordinary people ought not occupy one seat on the [Supreme] Court—they ought to fill all nine." [17]

In 2019, Parker authored an op-ed in which he claimed that political populism rests upon the Declaration of Independence as its animating document. [18] He argued that the Declaration established the right to abolish government when elite rulers act in a way that expresses alienation and disdain of the governed. This, he claims, has occurred throughout American history as populist regime changes, such as the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1932, and 1980.

He is currently writing an essay entitled "Constitutional Law is in Our Imagination." [19]

Impeachment of President Clinton

In 1998, prior to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Parker was invited to testify before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution on the history and interpretation of impeachment in the United States. [20] In his testimony, Parker eschewed historical comparisons to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, contending that such analyses would "freeze-dry" the meaning of the Constitution's provisions to previous factual situations. Instead, he argued that the operative question was whether the President's misconduct "gravely damage[d]" his capacity to lead. [21] Parker concluded that the standard for impeachable behavior should hinge upon whether such behavior or its attendant state of mind would render an individual unfit to hold the Office of President of the United States. [22]

Constitutional amendments

Parker supports using the Constitution's Article V amendment process to settle contested issues of constitutional law, rather than through Supreme Court litigation. In his 2003 testimony before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, he stated: [8]

American Government rests on the Constitution, but the Constitution does not rest on the Supreme Court. It doesn't rest on five people in robes. The Supreme Court can make some mistakes and it's the people who have the power under Article V to correct that mistake, those mistakes, and that is what is being proposed here.

Flag desecration amendment

Since 1994, Parker has participated with the Citizens Flag Alliance, a group dedicated to advancing the Flag Desecration Amendment. [7] This amendment would overturn the Supreme Court's 1989 decision Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated the Flag Protection Act and state laws passed in 48 out of the 50 states that criminalized desecration of the American flag. Because a majority of Americans polled support amending the Constitution to grant Congress the power to prohibit and criminalize flag desecration, [23] Parker believes that the Supreme Court's holding is out of step with the values of ordinary citizens. A constitutional amendment, in his view, would "correct a historically aberrant 5–4 decision that turned on the vote of one person appointed to a person for life." [8]

In his 2003 testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, he charged elite groups with opposition and indifference to the concerns of ordinary citizens: [8]

In a democracy, the burden should normally be on those who would block majority rule—in this case, a minority of the Congress, influential interest groups and most of the media, along with the five Justices who outvoted the other four—to justify their opposition. They have not been reluctant to do so. Indeed, they have been stunningly aggressive. No less stunning has been their unresponsiveness to (and even their seeming disinterest in) the arguments of the popular and congressional majority.

Patriotism

Parker has written and testified about the importance of public patriotism, which he understands as "a yearning for connection—despite everything—with one’s compatriots as compatriots." [24] Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, he wrote "Homeland: An Essay on Patriotism," which called on law schools to teach patriotism as “essential to the vitality of democratic politics” and “a source of value and as a popular sentiment.” [24] Testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 2004, Parker said: [8]

Public patriotism is surely basic to motivating broad participation in, and commitment to, our democracy. Far from endangering freedom and political order, it is essential to the effective enjoyment of freedom and maintenance of the legitimacy of government. If national projects, civilian or military, are to be undertaken — if our inherited ideals of liberty and equality are to be realized through concentrated national effort — public patriotism simply has to be valued; its unique symbol should, therefore, be protected.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Impeachment</span> The Process for charging a public official with legal offenses by the legislature(s)

Impeachment is a process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against a public official for misconduct. It may be understood as a unique process involving both political and legal elements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress as right

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, states "the right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights" are placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randy Barnett</span> American legal scholar (born 1952)

Randy Evan Barnett is an American legal scholar. He serves as the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the federal criminal convictions for the civil rights violations committed in aid of anti-Reconstruction murders. Decided during the Reconstruction Era, the case represented a major defeat for federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.

The Flag Desecration Amendment is a proposed addition to the Constitution of the United States that would allow the U.S. Congress to prohibit by statute and provide punishment for the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, preserving free speech, and upholding the liberty said to be represented by that national symbol. While the proposal has been passed by the two-thirds majority required in the House of Representatives several times, it has not passed the Senate by the same super-majority and has often not come to a vote in the Senate despite its introduction several times.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laurence Tribe</span> American lawyer and Harvard Law School professor

Laurence Henry Tribe is an American legal scholar who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Tennessee</span> Basic governing document of the U.S. state of Tennessee

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee defines the form, structure, activities, character, and fundamental rules of the U.S. State of Tennessee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Texas</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the U.S. state of Texas

The Constitution of the State of Texas is the document that establishes the structure and function of the government of the U.S. state of Texas, and enumerates the basic rights of the citizens of Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Korea</span> Highest constitutional court of South Korea

The Constitutional Court of Korea is one of the highest courts—along with the Supreme Court—in South Korea's judiciary that exercises constitutional review, seated in Jongno, Seoul. The South Korean Constitution vests judicial power in courts composed of judges, which establishes the ordinary-court system, but also separates an independent constitutional court and grants it exclusive jurisdiction over matters of constitutionality. Specifically, Chapter VI Article 111(1) of the South Korean Constitution specifies the following cases to be exclusively reviewed by the Constitutional Court:

  1. The constitutionality of a law upon the request of the courts;
  2. Impeachment;
  3. Dissolution of a political party;
  4. Competence disputes between State agencies, between State agencies and local governments, and between local governments; and
  5. Constitutional complaints as prescribed by [the Constitutional Court] Act.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional Court of Russia</span>

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is a high court within the judiciary of Russia which is empowered to rule on whether certain laws or presidential decrees are in fact contrary to the Constitution of Russia. Its objective is only to protect the Constitution and deal with a few kinds of disputes where it has original jurisdiction, whereas the highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kansas Senate</span> Upper House of the Kansas government

The Kansas Senate is the upper house of the Kansas Legislature, the state legislature of the U.S. State of Kansas. It is composed of 40 senators elected from single-member districts, each with a population of at least 60,000 inhabitants. Members of the Senate are elected to a four-year term. There is no limit to the number of terms that a senator may serve. The Kansas Senate meets at the Kansas State Capitol in Topeka.

Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]" was, in part, unconstitutional because it prohibited speech against the flag. The Court left for a later day the question of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional to prohibit, without reference to the utterance of words, the burning of the flag.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Kenya</span> Supreme law of the Republic of Kenya

The Constitution of Kenya is the supreme law of the Republic of Kenya. There have been three significant versions of the constitution, with the most recent redraft being enabled in 2010. The constitution was presented to the Attorney General of Kenya on 7 April 2010, officially published on 6 May 2010, and was subjected to a referendum on 4 August 2010. The new Constitution was approved by 67% of Kenyan voters. The constitution was promulgated on 27 August 2010.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

An unconstitutional constitutional amendment is a concept in judicial review based on the idea that even a properly passed and properly ratified constitutional amendment, specifically one that is not explicitly prohibited by a constitution's text, can nevertheless be unconstitutional on substantive grounds—such as due to this amendment conflicting with some constitutional or even extra-constitutional norm, value, and/or principle. As Israeli legal academic Yaniv Roznai's 2017 book Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers demonstrates, the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars in various countries throughout history. While this doctrine has generally applied specifically to constitutional amendments, there have been moves and proposals to also apply this doctrine to original parts of a constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Parker, Richard D. (1994). "Here, the people rule": a constitutional populist manifesto. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-38925-0.
  2. 1 2 "Richard D Parker". Harvard Law School. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  3. ↑ "Flag Amendment Chronology July 27, 2016 (All day) | The Citizens Flag Alliance". www.citizensflagalliance.org. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  4. ↑ "What is the Citizens Flag Alliance (CFA)? | The Citizens Flag Alliance". www.citizensflagalliance.org. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  5. 1 2 Parker, Richard D., ed. (1995). "A Constitution for the People". Harvard Law Review. 108 (5): 1198. doi:10.2307/1341876. ISSN   0017-811X. JSTOR   1341876.
  6. ↑ Parker, Richard (January 1, 1994). "Here, The People Rule: A Constitutional Populist Manifesto". Books by Alumni.
  7. 1 2 "Parker on protecting the flag: "I hope it will be much easier to amend the constitution"". Harvard Law Today. June 1, 2009. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 "Flag Protection Amendment". govinfo.gov. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  9. ↑ Brennan, William J.; Wald, Patricia M.; Parker, Richard; Monroe, Bill (1988). "In Memoriam: J. Skelly Wright". Harvard Law Review. 102 (2): 361–374. ISSN   0017-811X. JSTOR   1341383.
  10. 1 2 "On Working with Constraints: A Q&A with Richard Parker". Harvard Law Today. May 10, 2016. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  11. ↑ Parker, Richard (2002). "THE "FIRST PRINCIPLE" OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY: POLITICS WITHOUT END" (PDF). The National Citizens Initiative for Democracy.
  12. ↑ "Professor supports flag-protection amendment". The American Legion. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  13. ↑ Parker, Richard. "The Past of Constitutional Theory—And Its Future" (PDF). Ohio St. L.J. 42: 223–259.
  14. ↑ Strang, Lee (2011). "Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism: Theoretical Possibilities and Practical Differences". Notre Dame L. Rev. 87: 256, 284.
  15. ↑ "Here, the People Rule — Richard Parker". hup.harvard.edu. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  16. ↑ Graber, Mark (2000). "The Law Professor as Populist". U. Richmond L. Rev. 34: 373–413.
  17. 1 2 Parker, Richard. ""Here, the People Rule": A Constitutional Populist Manifesto". Val. U. L. Rev. 27: 581.
  18. ↑ Parker, Richard (December 8, 2019). "This time, another populist uprising". The Hill. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  19. ↑ "You Won't Like This: A Populist Addresses Donald Trump". POP. March 11, 2021. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  20. ↑ "Historical Impeachment Review, Pt. 1 | C-SPAN.org". www.c-span.org. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  21. ↑ Renan, Daphna (June 2020). "The President's Two Bodies" (PDF). Colum. L. Rev. 120: 1170.
  22. ↑ "Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton – The Evidentiary Record Pursuant to S. Res. 16 – Index to Senate Document 106-3, Vols. I-XXIV – Volume XX – Hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution – "Background and History of Impeachment" (November 9, 1998) Ser. No. 63". govinfo.gov. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  23. ↑ "Public Support for Constitutional Amendment on Flag Burning". Gallup.com. June 29, 2006. Retrieved May 10, 2021.
  24. 1 2 Parker, Richard D. (2001–2002). "Homeland: An Essay on Patriotism". Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 25: 407.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.