The debate about the Constitutional Reform Act is characterized by a sharp contrast between political and technical discourses. Political arguments, in favor of the reform, point to the decrease in the number of representatives, the reduction of the budget allocated to the functioning of the political process, the abolition of symmetric bicameralism, and the improvement in terms of the government’s stability and effectiveness of decision-making. Juridical discourse (in Constitutional Law) reasons in technical terms about the actual content of the Reform, by solely evaluating the scientific validity of the arguments. Under this point of view the entire reform process is seen as characterized by certain discrepancies, which can be related to considerations about both the inappropriateness and the inconsistency of the proposed solutions.. This essay attempts to elaborate an analysis of the reform which is disentangled by the political process and the associated discussion, so to recover the shared consciousness of the Constitution.