Skip to main content
An honest girl.she cares a lot about her friends and the people around her..so if she's ever in yo business it means she cares a lot and want to look out for you. She also very insecure and she cares what people say about her...when she's sad she just paints a smile on her face like there's nothing wrong but inside she is hurting on what people say about her but she learned how to keep her head high up
I feel like a Sevara
sevara by Deeznutzsuckass July 23, 2016
Sevara is typically confident, fiery, bold, spontaneous and independent. Very modern and self reliant she is often an inspiration to other people. Watch out for her temper, though – little things can spark her off. And it’s never pleasant being on the receiving end of her endless rants. However, once she’s had her say, all will be forgotten. Family, friends and loved ones know never to hold a grudge. Often can be stubborn - never taking no for an answer. Once she makes a decision, there’s no changing her mind.
Damn! That girl is so gorgeous, smart, and funny , she must be a Sevara.
Sevara by poot2349 November 21, 2021

Separately Single 

When two people in the entertainment industry are together however it is unacknowledged across all official channels; though unofficially it is cannon within the fandom.
Host: All the fellas want to know. Fellas I got you. Who is single and who is taken?
Lauren: SINGGLLEEE!!!
Camila: Really SINGLLEE!!
Lauren: Oh please don't make assumptions!
Camila: Please don't make assumptions. Very separately--
Lauren: Very separately single.
New 5H fan: Are Camila and Lauren together?
5H fan since 2012: No. They are separately single.
Separately Single by Bananas!! November 13, 2016

Separately Single 

when a closeted lesbian that's in a relationship with another closeted lesbian and doesn't want to admit it even though they make it extremely obvious
Camila: I would like a vanilla ice cream
Lauren: I would like the same
Ice Cream Shop worker: Is that toget-
Camila: SEPARATELY SINGLE
Lauren: VERY SEPARATELY SINGLE

Yesterday X Separation

Yesterday X Separation (Korean: 옛델대 뷔 셉알앋이온, stylized YESTERDAY / SEPARATION), commonly known as YXS, is a five-member Kwangyanese boy band formed by Throw It Back Rosie Entertainment. The group consists of five members Stoove, Yeoniel, Bengyu, Taerry and Kaimal.
Naega Byeonhae by Yesterday X Separation outsold the whole K-Pop Industry.

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.