Objecting Proposed Laws According to the Jordanian Constitution

The validation of laws is a crucial step in the process of making laws and it is absolutely necessary for its fulfillment. Constitutions, in their different shapes, confer this power to the president of the country according to their constitutional role. This power is put into practice by the president of the country after carefully examining the laws, which serves as additional supervision after they have been accepted by the parliament. Although it is acknowledged that the president has the right to express disagreement, how this right is applied differs from one constitution to another. There are different approaches when it comes to objecting proposed laws. Some people use the suspensive objection, which means they temporarily stop the enforcement of the law for a specific time period. On the other hand, there are those who go with the absolute objection, completely invalidating the proposed law. There is also a third category that combines both systems, like the Jordanian Constitution. After studying this topic, it can be concluded that the absolute objection does not align well with democratic systems that value the will of the people. As a result of this study, some recommendations have been made. These suggestions highlight the importance of reviewing constitutional texts to ensure they harmonize with modern democratic principles.