本文以西方共和主義創建理論的脈絡來比較分析卡爾‧施密特以及漢娜‧鄂蘭的憲政思想，探究兩位思想家如何基於現代民族國家以及共和主義的不同思想史資源，建構各自的憲政論述。施密特以深厚的公法學與政治思想史素養，將馬基維利以降迄於法國大革命的「超越常態之政治決斷論」為基礎，建構出一個完整的民族制憲權與同質民主的憲政理論。鄂蘭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行動導向，便可形成體現共同權力的政治體。本文除了探討兩者對革命制憲的不同觀點，並進一步分析，鄂蘭如何運用羅馬共和思想來批判施密特的政治神學，特別是她將「權威」與「權力」加以分離的概念架構不但是對施密特一元式權力觀念（不論是民族制憲權或主權決斷）的挑戰，更構成兩位思想家之間饒富理論意義的「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.