This research aims at understanding the discursive processes, mechanisms and methods whereby participants (members of parliament) of a Thematic Committee (called Comissão da Soberania e dos Direitos e Garantias do Homem e da Mulher - CSDGHM, or Committee on the Sovereignty, Rights and Guaranties of Men and Women) from the first phase of the last Brazilian Constitutional Assembly negotiate the approval of its final text, that counts as the (normative) project of the committee. This research situates itself in a gap of both the juridical and linguistics literature: juridical, because there is no work in the field of law that account for the micro level of the production of normative texts, its processes and consequences; linguistics, because, notwithstanding the notable development of the studies on Language and Law (also called Forensic Linguistics), a part of the more general studies on Applied Linguistics of Professions, no chapter of these studies seem much concerned with how normative texts are created. Using analytical framework from interactional-discursive studies and ethnomethodology - especially the concepts of intersubjectivity, formulation and account -, this research stems from the analysis of documents and official (lay) transcriptions of CSDGHM s meetings, available to public domain from websites of the Brazilian Camara dos Deputados (House of Representatives) and Senado Federal (Federal Senate). Overall, texts from three versions of the committee s project, transcripts from 13 meetings and some text from amendment propositions were initially analyzed. After this pre-analysis, for parts of the projects texts were selected as analytical guides to the spotting of key discursive phenomena and processes in the debate meetings, because these parts of the project were the most subjected to controversy in those meetings. Analysis has shown, first, that the process of norm-enacting is a macroactivity, which encompasses three main types of activities - the drafting activity, the amendment activity and the debate activity. This last activity - debate activity - is the most visible and most difficult of the three, and as such, is the privileged locus where controversial aspects of the text of the committee s project are negotiated, in search of a intersubjectivity that allows for the approval of that project, either by consensus, bargaining on parts of the text, or by a polarized vote in terms of yes ou no. Second, analysis has shown that participants negotiate intersubjectivity about the text through formulations - which negotiate the sense/s of the normative text under discussion and its effects on the possibility of accepting or rejecting this text -; and through accounts - which are used as discursive instruments to defend the correction or reasonableness of the ideological positions of the participants, with regard to the text under discussion and its/their formulated sense/s. Finally, analysis has shown the complexity of the process of norm-enacting, in general, of the debate activity, more particularly, and of the instruments, procedures, mechanisms and protocols used by participants of these activities to reach an agreement or a vote on the text to be approved, even more particularly.