Constitutional law as science: a proposal of some minimum conditions

Given the multiplicity of schools and currents of thought within constitutionalism and in political science and political thought in general, is it possible to develop a common terminology that contributes to our mutual understanding in the field of constitutional law? Can we build a common ground in terms of concepts, of a language or a vocabulary that allows us (if only) to pretend that we are doing something that can be called science? Or are we, as scholars, bound to be nothing more than just citizens with the ability to develop a higher level of discourse, which nonetheless does not permit to be contrasted or trusted in order to consider us as a “scientific community”? The paper will examin this questions and suggest a set of alternatives to tackle them, by way of proposing a number of (minimun) conditions that should allow us to talk about something like “the science of constitutional law”.