The mechanism of declaring the “normative content” of a legal norm unconstitutional is a crucial tool for upholding the constitutional order. However, its application demands a particularly cautious and balanced approach to avoid encroaching upon the legislative authority. The Constitutional Court of Georgia, while performing its role as a negative legislator, is not merely confined to prohibiting the insertion of new provisions into normative acts. In many cases, the Court confronts situations where the interpretation and application of a law spite its formally constitutional text contradict fundamental constitutional principles. In such contexts, the Court is required to exercise effective constitutional oversight without overstepping its institutional mandate. Nevertheless, the Georgian legal system currently lacks clear and consistent criteria for assessing the constitutionality of the “normative content” of legal norms, resulting in legal uncertainty and increasing the risk of subjective judicial reasoning. This paper seeks to address this gap by formulating a set of guiding criteria for evaluating the unconstitutionality of a norm’s “normative content,” based on a comparative analysis of constitutional jurisprudence from the United States and various European jurisdictions.