It will be argued that the right to resist can be considered as a non-institutional device of constitutional correction in cases of disagreement. In general the right to resist must be understood from the paradigm of participation and not from the paradigm of obedience. The constitution is a way that citizens have both to constitute and regulate power. Secondly, disagreement is enough for this right to emerge and it could be invoked for all of those who share the disagreement. Third, the right to resist is founded in the right of participation and therefore it must be considered as a characteristic element of the current constitutional dialogue and not the ‘last resort’. Two objections to this position must be addressed. Fourth resistance and rebellion are differentiated. While rebellion seeksto break with the existing constitutional pact, the resistance seeks to correct the current constitutional pact. Finally, some ideas will be advanced about legitimacy, democracy and resistance.