This study examines the philosophical underpinnings of the concept of a constitution, highlighting the relationship between ontology and normativity in constitutional theory. A constitution transcends a mere legal document or political artefact; it encapsulates ontological frameworks that delineate the essence of a political community, as well as normative norms that govern its validity and authority. This study examines the constitution as a hybrid entity—a social fact imbued with norms—by referencing both classical and current theorists, including Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt, Joseph Raz, Ronald Dworkin, and Neil MacCormick. This work analyses the contradiction between the descriptive (what is) and the prescriptive (what ought to be), contributing to continuing discussions over constitutional interpretation, legitimacy, and the philosophical foundations of legal power.
Shah Mohammad Omer Faruqe Jubaer (Mon,) studied this question.