Fiji's Family Network
Replies are closed for this discussion.
DO THEY EVER BOTHER FINDING OUT WHY FIJI PASSPORTS KEEPS RUNNING OUT????????
Emergency passport for medical treatment only
October 17, 2011 12:26:59 PMA+ A-|||
With effect from today, the Department of Immigration will only issue passports to those applicants who need to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment.
Director Immigration Nemani Vuniwaqa said this course of action has become necessary due to the limited stocks of blank passports that the department currently has.
What about those Government Officials who do not have a passport and they have asked to travel to certain countries for a meeting or so?Will they be allowed to get an emergency passport?
Guess what, every Tom Dick and Harry in Fiji now is putting their hands on owning a passport. This has never happened before and people will move out of the country as soon as they can. This should have never happen but people are fed up of coups, dictatorship and illegal governments. These has contributed to increase poverty, poorness, squatter, unemployment including increase mental disease, stress, poor health and early death in the country now. Lack of medication, poor nurse or doctor to patient ratio etc.
This is the worst period ever Fiji has ever experience. Its only getting worse. Nothing positive is happening but just putting out fires that is appearing everywhere around us.
An thing in conflict or repugnancy is null and void of law. The Constitution of the Fiji Islands is the supreme law of the land, any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law.
Unconstitutional acts are not laws and they confer no rights, they impose no duties, they afford no protection, THEY CREATE NO OFFICE and they are in legal contemplation as inoperative as though they had never been passed.
This is to say that the acts done by the illegal govt of Fiji in the exercise of its corporate powers are a nullity because the executive orders are "in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
The illegal laws are based on lies and fraud and are void at their inception.
The Acts of the Govt, having been found to be unconstitutional, are not laws; they were inoperative, conferring no rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the decrees.
It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects — with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official.
Everyone involved in the persecutions under these void decrees has been a trespasser. Our constitutional rights have been violated by these unconstitutional void decrees.
When a decree goes against the Constitution it is null and void of law, it bears no power power to enforce,no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed, unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such law not from any dates so branded in an open court of law.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute whether federal or state though having the form and name of law is in reality no law but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performs under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede an existing valid law. Indeed insofar as the statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land it is superceded thereby since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one if a repealed statute is unconstitutional the statute which it intends to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act which act is unconstitutional and void the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applies to the Constitutions as well as to the laws of several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Moreover a construction of a statute which brings in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectively as if it had in its expressed terms been enacted in conflict therewith. Sec 257 am jur 16th.
Protection of Rights
The actual existence of a statute prior to determination that it is unconstitutional is an inoperative fact and may have consequences which cannot justify being ignored when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional questions of rights claim to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality and enacted upon accordingly of prior determinations and of public policy in light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding upon the people.
Goodness, I'm english and even I don't get this !
So even if something declared by an illegal Regime is determined to be Unconstitutional, it could still mean that the people of that country, are bound by it ?
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. James Madison, August 4, 1822.
An unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority
An "unconstitutional act" constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it, and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. A legislative act in conflict with the Constitution is not only illegal or voidable, but absolutely void.
It is as if never enacted, and no subsequent change of the Constitution removing the restriction could validate it or breathe into it the breath of life.
This Govt has been found to be unconstitutional (Appeals Decision), and Unconstitutional Acts afford no protection and CREATE NO OFFICE.
All infringement is forbidden...We claim encroachment, infringement, impingement, usurpation.
Nullification, if applicable, is a much better way than repeal or impeachment.
".... nullification is both a Power retained by the States & The People as well as an Obligation imposed by Oath." -- Publius Hulda
If you are committed to restoring your rights you must take serious your obligation to the Constitution of Fiji. You do not give aid and comfort to usurpers and those intent upon waging war on our rights. Otherwise you commit treason.
"The remedy must come from the people themselves. They know what it is and how it is to be applied. With abiding confidence in their patriotism, wisdom, and integrity, I am still hopeful of the future, and that in the end the rod of despotism will be broken, the armed heel of power lifted from the necks of the people, and the principles of a violated Constitution preserved."
To paraphrase the author of Uncommon Sense, when confronted with a bully, you have a choice of 3 options, 1) submit, 2) argue, or 3) fight. In that context, what will you choose to do, relating to the unconstitutional Govt. will?
THE ANSWER IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE!
To fight could get me killed, to argue would be like speaking to a brick wall and get me nowhere, except exahausted and to submit, might be worse than being killed having fought for my freedom.
So, I think to fight is the correct and only answer in these circumstances. At least I would die, possibly, knowing that I died for the right cause, my freedom. I mean, they can only kill you once right ?
Precisely, Mark! Great reply.