This article offers a reply to the criticisms and challenges posed by Camila Vergara, Miguel Vatter, Mariana Velasco-Rivera, Yaniv Roznai, Roberto Gargarella and Zoran Oklopcic to Constituent Power and the Law. The reply is presented in six sections covering the following themes: (1) Rousseau’s primary assemblies and the role of the Legislator; (2) the distinction between sovereignty and constituent power; (3) the types of political practices that can be attributed to the constituent people; (4) the limits of the primary constituent power; (5) the role of constitutional and political history in the book; and (6) the nature of the claim that constituent power should be understood as a juridical concept.
