The aim of this work is to examine the conditions of appearance of the dialogic constitutionalism. The thesis that is desired to defend is that the reason because the dialogic constitutionalism emerges at the end of the 20th century is double. On one hand, as a result from structural objections led to constitutional jurisdiction. On the other hand, as a result from the deliberative turn of democracy, specifically for its theoretical contributions to the development of dialogic constitutionalism and for its limitations in order to approach to those objections to the courts. This paper proposes three specific argumentative stages. Firstly, systematise structural objections that are led to constitutional jurisdiction. Secondly, examine the most outstanding links of deliberative democracy. Thirdly, reconstruct the structural objections that are led to constitutional jurisdiction and the deliberative turn of the democracy as conditions of appearance of the dialogic constitutionalism.