Following the victory of Iran's Islamic Revolution, the drafting of the Constitution emerged as the country's most significant legal-political issue. One of the most contentious topics in this process was the inclusion of the principle of *Velayat-e Faqih* (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) in the Constitution, a move that faced serious opposition from a group of representatives—the minority faction—within the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution. Employing Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis theory and a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the positions held by the minority faction regarding the institutionalization of *Velayat-e Faqih*. The findings indicate that while the majority of the Assembly (representing the discourse of jurisprudential political Islam) emphasized the necessity of the *Velayat-e Faqih* principle, the minority faction—comprising figures such as Maraghei, Sahabi, Banisadr, Mirmoradzahi, and Nourbakhsh—opposed its inclusion. Their opposition was grounded in arguments regarding the principle's conflict with the concept of popular vote, the concentration of sovereignty in the hands of the clergy, the Assembly's lack of mandate for fundamental changes to the draft (unlike a Constituent Assembly), its incompatibility with the principle of *Shura* (consultation), and the reduction of *Velayat* (guardianship/authority) to mere *Vekalat* (representation/agency). Ultimately, this opposition was not merely a jurisprudential disagreement but a manifestation of the clash between two sub-discourses within political Islam: the jurisprudential and the liberal.