The paper aims to contrast the supposedly democratic justifications of the role of constitutional courts and the control of constitutionality offered by two authors so visibly different and distanced as Luigi Ferrajoli y Pierre Rosanvallon, who also seem to ignore each other. Both authors seek to distance themselves from certain deep-seated assumptions of liberal political thought and offer sound alternatives to the crisis of constitutional democracy. I will argue that their justifications reframe the very conception of democracy beyond the electoral representative democracy at the price of claiming an extremely strong conception of constitutional rigidity, in the case of Ferrajoli's guaranteeism, and of a deliberative depoliticization of disagreement, in the case of Rosanvallon's revisionism.
