Month: April 2020

vocation (n.)

early 15c., “spiritual calling,” from Old French vocacion “call, consecration; calling, profession” (13c.) or directly from Latin vocationem (nominative vocatio), literally “a calling, a being called” from vocatus “called,” past participle of vocare “to call” (from PIE root *wekw- “to speak”). Sense of “one’s occupation or profession” is first attested 1550s.

vanity (n.)

c. 1200, “that which is vain, futile, or worthless,” from Old French vanite “self-conceit; futility; lack of resolve” (12c.), from Latin vanitatem (nominative vanitas) “emptiness, aimlessness; falsity,” figuratively “vainglory, foolish pride,” from vanus “empty, void,” figuratively “idle, fruitless,” from PIE *wano-, suffixed form of root *eue- “to leave, abandon, give out.” Meaning “self-conceited” in English is attested from mid-14c. Vanity table is attested from 1936. Vanity Fair is from “Pilgrim’s Progress” (1678).

nobility (n.)

mid-14c., nobilite, “honor, renown; majesty, grandeur;” late 14c., “quality of being excellent or rare,” from Old French nobilite “high rank; dignity, grace; great deed” (12c., Modern French nobilité), and directly from Latin nobilitatem (nominative nobilitas) “celebrity, fame; high birth; excellence, superiority; the nobles,” from nobilis “well-known, prominent” (see noble (adj.)).

Meaning “quality of being of noble rank or birth; social or political preeminence, usually accompanied by hereditary privilege” is attested from late 14c.; sense of “the noble class collectively” is from late 14c. Sense of “dignity of mind, elevation of the soul, loftiness of tone” is from 1590s.

Republic

A republic (Latin: res publica, meaning “public affair”) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are attained, through democracy, oligarchy, autocracy, or a mix thereof, rather than being unalterably occupied. As such it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.[1][2][3]

In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]

As of 2017, 159 of the world’s 206 sovereign states use the word “republic” as part of their official names; however not all of these are republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor is the word “republic” used in the names of all nations with elected governments.

The word republic comes from the Latin term res publica, which literally means “public thing”, “public matter”, or “public affair” and was used to refer to the state as a whole. The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats and wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.

Most often a republic is a single sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or that have governments that are described as “republican” in nature. For instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution “guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government”.[9] In contrast, the former Soviet Union, which described itself as being a group of “Republics” and also as a “federal multinational state composed of 15 republics“, was widely viewed as being a totalitarian form of government and not a genuine republic, since its electoral system was structured so as to automatically guarantee the election of government-sponsored candidates.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Legal instrument

Legal instrument is a legalterm of art that is used for any formally executed written document that can be formally attributed to its author,[1] records and formally expresses a legally enforceable act, process,[2] or contractual duty, obligation, or right,[3] and therefore evidences that act, process, or agreement.[4][5] Examples include a certificate, deed, bond, contract, will, legislative act, notarial act, court writ or process, or any law passed by a competent legislative body in municipal (domestic) or international law. Many legal instruments were written under seal by affixing a wax or paper seal to the document in evidence of its legal execution and authenticity (which often removed the need for consideration in contract law). However, today many jurisdictions have done away with the requirement of documents being under seal in order to give them legal effect.

Electronic legal documents[edit]

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

With the onset of the Internet and electronic equipment such as the personal computers and cell-phones, legal instruments or formal legal documents have undergone a progressive change of dematerialisation. In this electronic age, document authentication can now be verified digitally using various software. All documents needing authentication can be processed as digital documents with all the necessary information such as date and time stamp imbedded. To prevent tampering or unauthorized changes to the original document, encryption is used. In modern times, authentication is no longer limited to the type of paper used, the specialized seal, stamps, etc., as document authentication software helps secure the original context. The use of electronic legal documents is most prominent in the United States’ courts. Most American courts prefer the filing of electronic legal documents over paper. However, there is not yet a public law to unify the different standards of document authentication. Therefore, one must know the court’s requirement before filing court papers.

To address part of this concern, the United States Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act in 2000 (P.L. 106-229 of 2000, 15 USCS sec. 7001) specifying that no court could thereafter fail to recognize a contract simply because it was digitally signed. The law is very permissive, making essentially any electronic character in a contract sufficient. It is also quite restrictive in that it does not force the recognition of some document types in electronic form, no matter what the electronic character might be. No restriction is made to signatures which are adequately cryptographically tied to both the document text (see message digest) and to a particular key whose use should be restricted to certain persons (e.g., the alleged sender). There is thus a gap between what the cryptographic engineering can provide and what the law assumes is both possible and meaningful.

Several states had already enacted laws on the subject of electronic legal documents and signatures before the U.S. Congress had acted, including Utah, Washington, and California to name only a few of the earliest. They vary considerably in intent, coverage, cryptographic understanding, and effect.

Several other nations and international bodies have also enacted statutes and regulations regarding the validity and binding nature of digital signatures.

To date, the variety (and inadequacy) of the definitions used for digital signatures (or electronic signatures) have produced a legal and contractual minefield for those who may be considering relying on the legality and enforceability of digitally signed contracts in any of many jurisdictions. Adequate legislation adequately informed by cryptographic engineering technology remains an elusive goal. That it has been fully, or adequately, achieved (in any jurisdiction) is a claim which must be taken with considerable caution.