The article examines the political and legal thought of Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt in the context of the opposition of descriptivity and prescriptivity. The comparison of the presented doctrines in this aspect is based not only on the presence of antagonism between them, but proceeds from the fact that a discussion existed for a long time between the thinkers. Although their discussion devoted to sovereignty, democracy and the guarantor of the constitution, nevertheless each time, it exposed methodological differences in the views of jurists. At the same time, in a broader ideological and theoretical perspective, such an aspect of comparison fits into the problem of the descriptive and prescriptive status of political and legal science. Thus, an appeal to the chosen topic allows us to deepen knowledge both about the vicissitudes of the relationship between the pure doctrine of law by G. Kelsen and the doctrine of decision by C. Schmitt, and to offer a theoretical model for resolving the descriptive-prescriptive conflict, which arises from the desire to reconcile the positions of thinkers.