This essay intends to investigate in the German doctrine of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the origins and nuances of the phenomenon of constitutional change, through the classic works of Georg Jellinek, Hermann Heller and Konrad Hesse. Through this review, we seek to demonstrate the inadequacy of the German legal positivism in the treatment of contradictions between reality and the letter of the Constitution. In translating the theme to the Brazilian context, by examining the phenomena of constitutionalization of the law, judicialization of political and social relation, neoconstitutionalism, we aim to demonstrate the institutional strengthening of the Judiciary as a result of the normative-factual context after the 1988 Constitution. This judicial prominence culminates in an activist judicial role, which sometimes overflows the bounds of the Constitution text. The votes of the Ministers Gilmar Ferreira Mendes and Eros Roberto Grau in the Complaint 4.335-5/AC impose themselves as a model of subversion. Nevertheless, with focus on philosophical hermeneutics of Hans- Georg Gadamer we intended to find the necessary theoretical tools to fight discretion and judicial arbitrariness, through the establishment of parameters, hermeneutical limits to constitutional change. Thus, due to the adoption of the paradigm of intersubjectivity proper of philosophical hermeneutics and the democratic rule of law, we seek to invest in an intersubjective and dialogical conception of constitutional change, where all instances and civil society, through interpretation, can influence the paths of informal constitutional change.