The big categories of constitutional justice which were dedicated in doctrine are the American model (judicial review) and the kelsenian model. Several under categories were proposed to highlight the diversity of the kelsenian model of constitutional justice. But to see there closely, one subdivision enters “intra-normative control of constitutionality†and “ultra-normative control of constitutionality†could be right. Indeed, we realize that, in a classic way, when we evoke the control of constitutionality, we tend to reduce it to the conformity test of a legal rule with regard to the constitutional standard to notice its ( no) conformity. Yet (Now), it seems that several attributions of constitutional jurisdictions in the kelsenian model - besides the control of constitutionality of legal rules- can be exercise without passing by the conformity test of a legal rule with regard to constitutional standard. There is indeed control of constitutionality, but the element confronted with the constitutional rule is not any more a legal rule but a behavior, an abstention, an attitude, a fact, a breach, a situation, etc. … In this last case, it would be advisable then to speak about ultra-normative control of constitutionality. The highlighted of this internal duality in the kelsenian model of constitutional justice allows to examine with a new glance the reference standards as well as the status of the constitutional judge in the kelsenian model, who are influenced - or should be influenced- by the exercise by certain constitutional jurisdictions of the powers of ultra-normative control of constitutionality. ; Les grandes catégories de justice constitutionnelle qui ont été consacrées en doctrine sont le modèle américain et le modèle européo-kelsénien. Plusieurs sous catégories ont été proposées pour rendre compte de la diversité interne au modèle européeo-kelsénien de justice constitutionnelle. Mais à y voir de près, une subdivision entre contrôle intra normatif et contrôle ultra normatif de ...