本文以西方共和主義創建??的脈絡?比較分析卡爾?施密特以及漢娜?鄂?的憲政思想，探究?位思想家如何基於現代民族國家以及共和主義的?同思想史資源，建構各自的憲政?述。施密特以深厚的公法學與政治思想史素養，將馬基維?以?迄於法國大革命的「超越常態之政治決斷?」為基礎，建構出一個完整的民族制憲權與同質民主的憲政??。鄂?則將公民權放在古典意義的社會層次，拒斥主權原則的優先性，認為只要有人們集體地以公共自由作為?動導向，?可形成體現共同權?的政治體。本文除?探討?者對革命制憲的?同觀點，並進一步分析，鄂?如何運用?馬共和思想?批判施密特的政治神學，特別是她將「權威」與「權?」加以分?的概?架構?但是對施密特一元式權?觀?（??是民族制憲權或主權決斷）的挑戰，?構成?位思想家之間饒富??意義的「隱蔽對話」。

This paper explores the contributions of the thoughts of Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt to the issue of constitutional theory. Based on my previous research on republicanism, my argument is that Schmitt transforms the Machiavellian idea of founding into the constituent power of the nation. The identity of a state is thus located in an identification with the transcendent nation. In On Revolution, Arendt conducts a hidden dialogue with Schmitt, rejecting the idea of creating a political order via dictatorship. Relied on classical political philosophy, Arendt’s argument asserts that the “principium” (principle) exemplified in citizens’ collective actions is the immanent source of political legitimacy. In this way, the locus of political identity for Arendt is societas, not nation.