Constitution or law: which prevails
The article discusses the controversy surrounding the role of the constitution and law in regulating rights and property in Jordan, especially concerning land ownership and compensation. The author explains that the constitutional text states that expropriation is for public benefit and must be compensated with fair remuneration. It emphasizes that only the law has the authority to regulate and define the concept of "just compensation." Criticisms focus on certain legal amendments that allow for the expropriation of land without compensation, which openly violates Article 11 of the Constitution and threatens the foundations of constitutional and legal stability. The author rejects some deputies' interpretations that the constitutional text permits defining compensation solely through law, considering such an interpretation as a means to circumvent constitutional rights. This approach endangers the principle of protecting property and fundamental rights. The article also discusses the role of other laws, such as the Cybercrimes Law, in regulating rights without infringing upon them. It warns that viewing law as a tool for restricting rights risks undermining democracy and civil liberties.
Notice: This Is an AI-Generated Summary
Comments (0)