Constitutional law is bedevilled by a crisis of standpoints. Many times, this has led to a lack of congruence between theory and practice. The true nature of the constitution is, for example, a central problem of Constitutional Law. In theory, the constitution is supreme 'law'. But, in practice, most publicists and courts recognize decrees during military rule as different from, yet superior to, the constitution. The student is fed these mutually antagonistic propositions, with a consequent loss of faith in the integrity of the subject matter. To make Constitutional Law more coherent, 'The Constitution as Junction of Force and Law' proposes the unifying doctrine of preponderant force. Because of the ontological nature of the problem, the book goes beyond the traditional sources of legal science. Although it examines constitutions, statutes and cases as well as books on these written by lawyers, it has also sought assistance elsewhere. The research reveals that: *The confusion of standpoints mostly results from an undue reliance upon textual analysis as well as a failure to distinguish Constitutional Law (i.e., the subject of study) from the constitution (i.e., the object studied). *Nomenclature is irrelevant. Whether it is called a 'decree,' 'charter,' 'constitution,' 'basic law,' etc., if it is the supreme law, then it is the constitution. *The constitution is of two parts: the written, partly written, or wholly unwritten, framework of government; and, the energizing force, which sustains that framework. *Normally, there are competing frameworks. A constitution is that one supported by the polity's current wielder of preponderant force. Since Constitutional law is the study of constitutions, this book concludes that, for coherence, it should always be taught and studied with a sensitive appreciation of the influence of preponderant force.