In the common law tradition, the idea of the constitution is a paradox: the laws that are supposed to be foundational for the ordinary laws that govern day-to-day life turn out to be an integral part of those same ordinary laws. The constitution is part of the general law of the land. This is not so in other legal traditions. In France, it has been said, the constitution is paraded in full splendour before the ranks of ordinary law; its commands are the voice of an extraordinary sovereign to be obeyed and never questioned. In the common law tradition, however, constitutional laws are dispersed amongst the ranks, their effect manifested as a powerful centripetal force from within. The constitution is not a special phenomenon isolated from the rest, but something to be questioned, debated, discussed, and developed just as any other law is – through ordinary legal discourse. This conception of the constitution is especially evident in the United Kingdom today, but it remains relevant in modified ways in other common law jurisdictions, even those that have adopted entrenched constitutional documents. Is there any value to understanding constitutional law, or indeed the general ideal of constitutionalism, in this common law way?