This essay tries to approach the problematic nature of the concept of civil disobedience, as compared to other versions of citizen resistance. It looks for a rich definition, based in authors like Rawls, Dworkin and Habermas, who have proposed an institutional version of civil disobedience. Form that point, the text defends the thesis of a constitutional justification of civil disobedience as a mechanism that is not only necessary but legitimate in contemporary democracies. It tries to guarantee both the permanent update of the constitutional text and the incorporation of alternative ways of life and of dissident political actors.