憲法之解釋是憲法成長的主要方式之一，緣於憲政主義所強調的權力分立原則，解釋憲法乃是司法權的延伸。我們知道，憲法本身具有高度的「政治」性質，因此司法機關在解釋憲法時難免涉入政治紛爭。為了彰顯司法的獨立與中立，無論是行使司法審核權的美國聯邦最高法院或是歐陸國家的特設釋憲機關，在實務上發展出了「政治問題原則」與「統治行為原則」，來迴避政治爭訟，學者多稱其為「司法自治」。依我國憲法規定，司法院設大法官會議解釋憲法。民國三十八年底政府戡亂失敗，倉促撤退來台，大法官釋憲之範圍與程序不及以法律詳訂之。為鞏固領導中心及維持台灣政治穩定，大法官會議在若干釋憲案上配合政治環境(論著或云是配合國民黨「一黨威權」統治)的需要，也就不足為奇。本文即是針對非常憲政體制終止之前(亦即是在民國八十年第一階段修憲之前)，具有高度政治爭議的釋憲案，根據其共有之特色：「國會」，作詳盡的分析。本文首先說明研究動機與研究目的，其次為文獻探討，分別簡要說明「政治問題」與「統治行為」之定義與範圍。按著以與「國會」有關的三個解釋為例，詳論釋字第76號、第31號、第261號之解釋內容與前因後果。在結論中，作者建議以寬容的態度來看待這三個解釋，但司法仲裁不介入政治，應是爾後努力的方向。此外，作者也建議為使大法官會議在迴避政治問題時有明確的依循標準，以法律明訂政治問題的範疇或將是新的嘗試。

　　　　　The interpretation of the constitution is one of the major ways of the growth of the constitution. Owing to the "Seperation of Powers" principle which is emphasized by the Constitutionalism, the interpretation of the constitution is the extention ofthe judicial power. As we know, constitution itself contains hihgly politicalsubstances, so it's hard for the judicial organization to avoid getting involved in thepolitical entanglement. In order to brighten the judicial independence andneutrality, no matter the U.S. supreme court or the specialized organization tointerpret the constitution for most Euro-constinential countries, gradually developthe "Political Question" principle and the "Act of State" principle when theyinterpret the constitution to evade the political disputes. The judicial behaviors guided by such principles are called the "Judicial Self-Restraint". According to the regulations of the ROC's Constitution, the Judicaial Yuan shall have a certain numbers of Grand Justices to interpret the Constitution. In1949, the Nationalist Government retreated to Taiwan hurriedly because of thefailure of the anti-rebellion movement against the Chinese Communist Party. Notonly the scope and procedure for the Grand Justices to interpret the Constitution couldn't be regulated by laws in time, but also for the reasons to consolidate the centralized-authoritarian leadership and to maintain Taiwan's political stability, it's no wonder the Grand Justices would meet the needs of the authoritarianism's political environment to interpret the Constitution. This paper tries to analyze some highly-political-disputable cases which interpreted by the Grand Justices before the epilog to the abnormal constitutional order in April 1991, and the "Parliament" was their common characteristics. This paper contains four main parts. First, the writer expresses his research motive and purpose. In the second part of theoretical background, the writer tries to depict the definitions and scopes of the "Political Question" principle and the "Act of State" principle in brief. Following is the three cases which are related to the "Parliament". In last part-conclusion, the writer suggests that we should look upon the three cases with tolerance, but the judicial self-restraint is the right goal aheadof us. In addition, the writer also suggests to regulate the scope of political questionwith law, which is helpful for the Grand Justices to evade political questions.