Skip to main content

“I’ve made a severe and continuous lapse of my judgment and I don’t expect to be forgiven I’m simply here to apologize”

Something Logan Paul said once....
...and got a lot of hate for it after a certain incident.
Pewdiepie reviewed this sometime not too long ago and said the steps to an apology “I’ve made a severe and continuous lapse of my judgment and I don’t expect to be forgiven I’m simply here to apologize”
“I’ve made a severe and continuous lapse of my judgment and I don’t expect to be forgiven I’m simply here to apologize” mug front
Get the “I’ve made a severe and continuous lapse of my judgment and I don’t expect to be forgiven I’m simply here to apologize” mug.
See more merch

i've made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgement 

i've made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgement and i don't expect to be forgiven

I have made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgement 

An apology to say when you’re not actually sorry.
“I have made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgement”
- Jake Paul

drip severe 

This ain’t no regulardrip” this that you drippin so hard no one else can steel it from you.
1)Kalen is drippin so hard it’s severe
2)That boy kavo drip severe
drip severe by Kavo da goat July 20, 2019

A severe lack of female companions? 

The phrase is usually shown alongside with a peeking image of the character Megamind from the 2010 film Megamind
Identical to No bitches? but formal i guess?
A: Josh doesn't go outside and he plays league all day. He get no bitches
B: He has a severe lack of female companions? you're saying?

Sovereign Kingdom 

To travel within The Sovereign Kingdom is to travel knowing every intimate detail will be attended to—it is to know that you are king/ queen—you are The Sovereign during your stay within The Sovereign Kingdom.

The Sovereign Kingdom: End-to-end travel and concierge service ensures luxury travelers' unique needs are fulfilled for their next trip, thanks to discounted flight options, homes in first-class travel destinations and a helpful concierge team of experts who meticulously raise the bar of service and delivery
Hey! Are you traveling within The Sovereign Kingdom?

OMG, that house is sick! It must be a Sovereign Kingdom

citizen of the several states 

1. One of two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. The other is a citizen of the United States. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at p. 74 and p. 75 1873)

2. A corporation is not a 'citizen' within Const. U. S. art. 4, §2, providing that the “citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states,” nor within the Fourteenth Amendment, §1. providing that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, and that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

2a. "Section 1770b has been several times considered by this court, and upheld to the full extent of its terms. It is enacted under the undoubted power of every state to impose conditions in absolute discretion upon granting the privilege of doing business in this state to any foreign corporation. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, 120 Wis. 281, 97 N. W. 940. That power is not restrained by section 2, art. 4, of the federal Constitution, providing that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states, nor by section 1, Amend. 14, to that Constitution, providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, because foreign corporations are not citizens. Paul v. Virginia, supra; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, supra." Loverin & Browne Company v. Travis: 115 N.W. 829, 831 (1908)

2b. "It bas been repeatedly held, by the supreme court of the United States, that corporations were not citizens of the several states in such sense as to bring them within the protection of that clause in the constitution of the United States (section 2, article IV), which declares that ‘the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states;’ Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 586; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wallace, 177.

Are corporations citizens of the United States within the meaning of the constitutional provision now under consideration? It is claimed in argument that, before the adoption of the 14th amendment, to be a citizen of the United States, it was necessary to become a citizen of one of the states, but that since the 14th amendment this is reversed, and that citizenship in a state is the result and consequence of the condition of citizenship of the United States.

Admitting this view to be correct, we do not see its bearing upon the question in issue. Who are citizens of the United States, within the meaning of the 14th amendment, we think is clearly settled by the terms of the amendment itself. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ No words could make it clearer that citizens of the United States, within the meaning of this article, must be natural, and not artificial persons; for a corporation cannot be said to be born, nor can it be naturalized. I am clear, therefore, that a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States as that term is used in the 14th amendment." The Insurance Company v. The City of New Orleans: 1 5th. Jud. Cir. 85, 86 thru 88 (1870).

2c. “But in no case which has come under our observation, either in the State or Federal courts, has a corporation been considered a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.” Paul v. State of Virginia: 75 U.S. 168, 178 (1868).

3. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several states are provided for in Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at p. 15 (1906).
Usage: I am a citizen of the several States and not a citizen of the United States.