在特殊性发达的现代社会，如何处理好个体特殊性与国家普遍性的关系，黑格尔与马克思提出了不同的方案。以具有立宪与立法双重含义的立法权为切入点，研究马克思在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中对黑格尔国家理论的批判，有利于从逻辑与历史两方面把握马克思与黑格尔两种方案的根本分歧。黑格尔认为国家制度（Verfassung）或宪法自在自为的就是理性的，构成了立法权的前提。不具有立宪权的立法权构成了政治国家与市民社会之间的双重中介：一方面，它是市民社会进入国家的中介；另一方面，特殊性要经过普遍性的教化，所以它又是国家进入市民社会的中介，甚至后一种中介功能更重要。立法权的双重中介功能通过等级要素实现：个体进入等级，实体性等级根据长子继承制直接进入国家，产业等级则通过同业公会选派等级代表。黑格尔力图以先在的国家普遍性约束和教化个体特殊性，其前提是政治国家对市民社会的决定作用。 马克思对黑格尔的立法权思想进行了批判。马克思反对黑格尔将国家制度置于立法权之上，认为立法权应该包含立宪权。即使在宪法之下，立法权也无力充当黑格尔所设想的双重中介。在现代，政治国家和市民社会分离作为两个极端存在，特殊性发达的市民社会成为人民的现实生活，而承载普遍性的政治国家则退化为虚幻的政治天国。不同于中世纪的政治等级，现代的社会等级是追逐特殊性的私人等级，失去了伦理、政治的意义，实体性等级或产业等级都无法被提升到普遍性的高度，无力充当中介。在继承和批判黑格尔思想的基础上，马克思阐释了自己的立法权思想。人民本身就具有普遍性，有权为自己制定宪法，所以立法先立宪。通过开启传统社会—现代社会—未来社会的历史性视域，马克思指出普遍性的实现需要同时扬弃政治国家与市民社会。在真正的民主制中，政治国家回归人民本身，个人的社会存在性与共同体作为个体社会存在方式的本质由此实现。因此，立法权无需担任中介，直接体现具有普遍性的人民意志。在理论意义上，马克思的立法权批判不仅在方法论上逐渐实现了从逻辑向社会历史的转变，而且在理论方向上指明了超越抽象的政治理性的必然性。在实践意义上，马克思的批判为审视当代西方自由民主制何以遭遇正当性危机提供了理论资源，并为新时代中国特色社会主义政治建设如何促进人民民主提供了理论指导。

Hegel and Marx offer different solutions on how to deal with the relationship between individual particularity and community universality in a modern society that promotes the full development of particularity. Taking the legislative power, which has both constitutional and legislative meanings, as an entry point, studying Marx's critique of Hegel's theory of the state in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law is conducive to grasping the fundamental differences between Marx and Hegel on the issue of the modernity of the state from both logical and historical perspectives.According to Hegel, constitution (Verfassung) that is rational in-itself and for-itself, which constitutes a precondition for the legislative power. The legislative power, which does not have constitutional power, constitutes a mediating organ between the political state and civil society: on the one hand, it mediates the entry of civil society into the state; on the other hand, the particular is subject to the indoctrination of the universal, so that it mediates the entry of the state into civil society, even if the latter function is more important. The dual mediating function of the legislative power is realized through the Estates: the individual enters the Estates, the substantial estate produces the Estates according to primogeniture, and the business estate elects its Estates representatives through corporation. Hegel seeks to bind and indoctrinate individual particularity with the prior state universal, premised on the determining role of the political state over civil society. Marx critiqued Hegel's idea of legislative power. Marx rejected Hegel's placing of the institution of the state above the legislative power, arguing that the legislative power should include the constitutional power. Even under the constitution, the legislative power was incapable of acting as the mediating organ envisaged by Hegel. As enter modern society, the political state and civil society move from the same to a split, with civil society, which promotes the development of particularity, becoming a reality for the people, while the political state degenerates into an illusory political heaven. As a result, the estate in civic society is chasing particularity, losing its ethical and political significance, and neither the substantial estate nor the business estate can be raised to the height of universality to act as a mediator. Marx rejects the prior universal as the basis of the state and the decisive role of the political state in civil society.On the basis of his inheritance and critique of Hegel's thought, Marx expounded his own idea of the legislative power. The people have the right to make a constitution for themselves, so legislation precedes constitution-making. By opening up the historical horizon of traditional society-modern society-future society, Marx points out that the true realization of universality requires a two-way transcendence of the political state and civil society. In a truly democratic society, politics returns to the people themselves, and the social existence of the individual and the nature of the community as a means of individual social existence are thus realized. Thus, the legislative power does not need to act as mediating organ and directly embodies the universal will of the people. The legislative power can be realized through universal suffrage, which is different from hierarchical and representative systems.In a theoretical sense, Marx's critique of the legislative power not only reflects his critical method of moving from logic to social history, but also points to the need to abandon the abstract universality of the state in order to transcend the modern state. In a practical sense, Marx's critical thought helps to examine the theoretical roots of the crisis of legitimacy suffered by liberal democracy and provides theoretical guidance on how to promote people's democracy in the political construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.