Conflict between Jurisprudence and Legal Methods on the Issue of the Head of Government in Assembly of Experts for Constitution

From the perspective of the history of the constitutional law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, negotiations in the Assembly of Experts for Constitution can clarify questions or ambiguities surrounding the constitutional law issues. In light of this, the present paper has investigated one of the main issues of the Islamic Republic of Iran's constitutional law – "the head of government" – and has addressed questions on the opinion of the MPs about the head of government. The paper uses a critical, descriptive-analytic research method, and the findings indicate that the representatives refer to the contrast between “Imamiyeh jurisprudence" and "modern conception" of the constitutional law. Here we can witness some kind of conflict of thought which has not only resulted in the "make - Jurisprudence of the text of the constitution" but it also creates a kind of imbalance between the "principle of proportionality of duties and powers". Such discrepancy between authority and responsibility leads to a conflict of practice regarding the constitution. Furthermore, observers to the constitution have to convey a different conception of "president" in the context of the Iranian constitutional law.