Public Law has some unique characteristics which draws a distinction between it and other branches of law. It proposes this question، that whether these characteristics provide a specific way of interpretation for public law. One can answer to this question that although public law does not have specific method of interpretation، it enjoys different interpretational schools in different ways. For example، nowadays، the inefficiency of Originalism in some area of public law is well demonstrated. In constitutional law، the key role of constitution as a most important document in distribution of power، freedoms and rights and its ambiguous and general terms presents some problems for Orginalism، which believes in determination of meaning. In administrative law، regarding the fundamental developments in the modern administration and the hesitation about some premises of it-such as rule of law and separation of power-Originalism faces with a crisis. Therefore، there are some growing trends toward dynamic ways of interpretation. This debate plays a pivotal role in distribution of power between judiciary and administrative institutions.

The constitution, as one of the key concepts of public law, is a multifaceted concept. The Constitution, apart from the written text, has other layers that they call the unwritten principles of the constitution. These principles cover a wide range of areas, one of the most fundamental of which is constitutional conventions. They are both in the States of the written constitution and States of unwritten constitution. Understanding the constitution without knowing these key concepts is incomplete. This article attempts to clarify the various aspects of this fundamental concept by descriptive and analytical methods and As the complexity of the concept shows Review the theoretical foundations, their functions, and its relation to equivalence concepts.

The Egyptian Constitution of 1971 addressed the issue of the necessity of protecting the Constitution and established the Supreme Constitutional Court for this task. This body is currently is protecting the Constitution of 2014, as stipulated in Article 192 of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, as the task of "monitoring the constitutionality of statutes and regulations". While the laws in the Egyptian legal system are diverse, the effectiveness of the constitutional review system requires the adoption of ordinances to expand the scope of the Supreme Constitutional Court. One of these ordinances is that all laws are subject to the constitutional review of the Court. Accordingly, ordinary laws, Supplementary Constitutional Laws, laws approved by the referendum, abolished laws, parliamentary internal regulations, international treaties, and decisions of the president are subject to the constitutional review of the Supreme Constitutional Court. This is a mark of the effective and genuine constitutional review system in Egypt. However, the Constitutional Amendment rule is out of the constitutional review scope of the Supreme Constitutional Court. In this article, the efficiency of the constitutional review of statutes in the law of Egypt has been investigated.

Constitutional jurisdiction, prior to the advent of broad wave of human rights concepts (almost before 1945), can be examined primarily within the framework of institutional constitutional law. At that historical period, the administration of constitutional justice, wich had the primary purpose of ensuring the stability of governmental structures and the existing separation of powers and observance the hierarchy of norms, was usually abstract. The supervision of the constitutional courts at that time was mostly priori, and in cases where posteriori review had been foreseen, referral of the petition was merely a matter for the authority of government officials, such as the president or prime minister. After the end of the Second World War and the movement of legal systems towards libertarian constitutional law, tangible changes were made in the functions of these institutions. From now on, different countries have provided individuals access to these institutions in various ways in order to pursue their fundamental rights and freedoms. Among all of the predicted ways of accessing constitutional jurisdiction, the constitutional complaint has come up with wider grasp. Constitutional complaint is the most effective way of guaranteeing and protecting fundamental freedoms. In this paper, after classifying and reviewing the different ways of access to constitutional jurisdiction, considering the importance of constitutional complaint and answering questions related to the components and principles of this method, its significant effects on the formation of participatory democracy and the theory of human rights in a country will be considered as the basis for the constitutional complaint.

Courts and tribunals are the most important institutions for presenting reasoning in the legal systems of any country and reasoning and its quality play an important role in procedures. This matter has been not only at the level of ordinary courts but also at the level of constitutional procedure, and reasoning has played a central role in the decisions of constitutional courts. In this article, we try to analyze how the constitutional courts are able to extract the most and useful meaning from the brevity, ambiguity or silence of the constitution by using complex tricks and methods of interpretation and reasoning. Therefore, we try to address some basic questions about the nature of legal reasoning and substantive reasoning, constitutional reasoning methods, and the methods and patterns of reasoning of the constitutional courts of countries in their decisions. In order to answer to the above questions, it should be said briefly: “constitutional reasoning” is a method of legal reasoning that tries to push the legal arguments of the constitutional judge towards justification and while being faithful to the constitution, takes a distance from the judge's personal/subjective arguments. Constitutional judges generally follow different ways of reasoning which in this brief we have dealt with three argumentative approaches, namely ‘linguistic approach’, ‘systemic approach’ and ‘value or teleological approach’. Constitutional courts have also usually chosen one of the above methods of reasoning, based on their country's social, political and historical background.

Today, the jurisdiction of the constitutional judge does not limit to constitutional review of legislation,they have widespread competence in protecting the constitutional rights of individuals, so that they can be called judges of constitutional rights. The constitutional complaint that was foreseen for the first time in the German legal system, gives all persons the "right" to sue all forms of actions by public authorities (including the laws of the parliament) which violated their fundamental rights at constitutional tribunals. This paper examines the general capacities of the constitutional justice to support fundamental rights and enumerate the essential elements of the constitutional complaint and then describes the developments in France (after the 2008 constitutional amendments) and the United Kingdom (after the adoption of the human rights law in 1998), which seems to have been dramatically inspired by constitutional complaint by a comparative approach.

The interpretation of the constitution is essential in any legal system to address emerging issues and ambiguities in the implementation of law. However, not all legal systems, experts in this field, or interpretive institutions follow a uniform interpretive approach. Each interpretive approach will result in different interpretive tools used by the interpreter and different outcomes; a matter of unparalleled importance regarding the constitution. In interpreting the constitution as the supreme law and foundational document of a society, question is whether the interpreter is completely free to interpret the constitution as they see fit, or they are bound by a clearly defined framework that they cannot disregard? The guarantee of individual rights in the constitution rests on the interpreter adhering to specific principles and operating within a defined framework within interpreting the law.

The constitution is a covenant with the nation and the government, that is a logical and external symbol of the social contract for every country and it reverberates on the background of legal system and protects its sanctity and implementing its principles requires considerable attention. Despite its importance and its legal and political status, the Constitution isn’, t exempt from need for interpretation. Also the historical concerns of violation, the separation of powers, abuse of the authority to interpret the law, and the comprehensive claim and obstruction of the subject laws, have caused doubts in the recognition of the establishment of the interpretation of law, especially the constitution. For this reason, the interpretation of constitution and need for scientific analysis and use of reasonable method with a view to the of human rights, become very important. It is obvious that rules and methods of this interpretation should be used in the framework of comprehensive theory, so that on the one hand, they don’, t cause difference in the sense of the constitution and on other hand, they bring coherence to the legal system. With realistic interpretation, understanding provisions of the constitution in objective context and taking care of the coherence of legal system provide the most suitable context in this category. In this research by using library resources in a descriptive-analytical way, an effort has been made in order to become familiar with the legislative process, the effect of applying human rights opinions and ideas, the interpretation of the constitution and its role in the development of constitutional rights and also to prevent the crisis in law-abiding governance by applying principles to balance the matter of interpretation,these issues are considered by the authors in this article.

The idea of ​​constitutional proceedings, as an institution overseeing the observance of the principles and provisions of the constitution, entered the legal literature of the modern government in the constitutional period for the first time with the approval of the standard principle. But the design and identification of this mechanism (except for a legislative period) never led to the application of this control mechanism in the legal system of that period.  This article seeks to answer the question, what are the structural and jurisdictional shortcomings of the constitutional judge in Iran's constitutional legal system? In the form of descriptive-analytical research, significant factors such as; “failure to formulate internal regulations for the institution of constitutional judge”, “weak content of the standard principle”, “Lack of assigning the authority to interpret the Constitution to the supervisory board”, “Identifying the five-person board as members of the National Consultative Assembly”, “failure to assign the competence to supervise the elections of the National Consultative Assembly”, were identified as structural and competence shortcomings of this institution in the failure to realize and implement the system of control and supervision over the legislative process and the practical dismantling of that mechanism from the legislative arena of the constitutional system. However, the possibility of monitoring the law and the legislator in the contemporary legal history of Iran was considered up to the certainty of this achievement.

The idea of supervising the conformity of statutory law with constitutional law, is due to necessities rooted in two essential principles: the supremacy of constitution and the hierarchy of the law. Constitution as the supreme law in the sense of status and legal value, is placed at the top of the legal pyramid of every political system and therefore requires a special organization and discipline that will act as the sanction of the principles and the main content incorporated in this legal instrument. this special organization and discipline known as Constitutional justice in legal Literature now and have studing in two main patterns. Firs pattern based on Supervision of courts on rules and other pattern is Apply by Emphasis on role of Political Institutions in Supervision on rules. This two patterns have common purpose but have different backgrounds and methods.