This research revolves around the topic of constitutional deterrence. Through this study, the researcher aimed to understand the reality of achieving constitutional deterrence in light of constitutional texts, as the topic of constitutional deterrence is distinguished by a specificity that distinguishes it from other legal fields, depending on the nature of the field that the constitutional rule seeks to frame by regulating the work of public authorities and the lives of individuals in society. The protection of the constitution and the effectiveness of its texts cannot be justified as fixed data for achieving constitutional and political reform, as they are an indicator that enhances the possibilities of its supremacy, its effectiveness, and its impact on the lives of individuals through the interaction of the structure of the constitution and its compatibility with societal variables only, given that the constitution is static, and that there is supremacy to the constitution from a founding perspective. Rather, there must be means of constitutional deterrence that support the constitution with constitutional texts that include material and legal penalties, in addition to official deterrent institutions that prevent its violation - the constitutional judiciary - capable of exposing violations of the constitution. Regardless of the degree of the mechanisms for achieving supremacy and protection, they remain relative and limited without a sound legal framework for the means of constitutional deterrence..
Mohammed J. Kadhim (Sun,) studied this question.