Corporate personhood should be repealed

Let's get this show on the road ;D Definitions: Ahh the lovely case of looking at who's definition works best. I implore you to look once again at the definition of a person that the con provided in his case. [1] Honestly that definition served very well to prove the AFF because as the first definition it states: a human being regarded as an individual. Please don't tell me the negation intend to regard a corporation, which consists of many people and the legal bindings between them to be neither human nor an individual. Now to the actual definition of what is a corporation [2]. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. RC1: It is interesting to hear it be brought up by my opponent in his first contention that corporations are run by people. That's not a little known fact, and it actually works to strengthens my case believe it or not. First, let's rewind the debate a little bit. My opponent seems to be under the misconception that corporate personhood gives right to the people behind the corporations. That is absolutely not the case as every person under the constitution already have rights, before during and after they become part of a corporation. Corporate personhood nothing but to give them twice the human rights as any non-corporate citizen of the United States, and the Con considers that fair? Think about this logically, corporations aren't people, they can't face the consequences like you and I, so why should they receive the same benefits. They can't go to jail, can't be put on death row, can't be drafted at 18. .. but they're allowed to reap in the same "rights" that we have for the entirety of their lifetime? Which is, as I would like to point out, a heck of a lot longer than any person's is. [3] The last part of the Con's first contention stated that CEO's are people too. Yeah you'll get no argument from me on that point, because they are, WITHOUT corporate personhood. Tell me, did Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Donald Trump not have all the rights under the constitution just because they are in fact citizens of the United States before Corporate Personhood was ever enacted? What gives them the rights of two U. S citizens just based on the fact that they are now part of a group of people? RC2: "All men are created equal. " The famous words of our forefathers. I wonder if we need another definition as to what precisely "men" is. [4] [5] [6] I took the liberty of providing the con with three sources that stated that men, are anything but corporations. The Con is assuming that corporations are people just because the supreme courts ruled it to be so, but that's the entire point of the debate. Corporations are not people, and nowhere in the con's case he had proven that corporations are in fact, men. So his second contention is void. Since corporations aren't men, the fact that the Declaration states that all men are equal have no bearing on this debate. RC3: The con is using the 14th amendment to prove that repealing corporate personhood would violates the constitution. Well, let's see, the 14th amendment was created for newly freed slaves that are undisputedly people. One of the main issues under debate is whether or not corporations, a simple charter from the government, is an actual person. [7] As I've stated before, and have backed up with many cards, corporations are simply not people, and the 14th amendment does not apply. Also, if we were to be a bit picky with the legalese of the 14th amendment, it's kind of hard to apply it to corporations anyways. "The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U. S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " If we read the "states from denying any person within its jurisdiction" part, we will see a bit of a problem implementing this in real life. In this modern age, most corporations are international, let alone nation-wide. If we were to have states granting right to it according to it's definition, then how do we grant rights across state lines or even country borders? A corporation isn't as simple as a person, one that can't easily live in the exact middle of country borders just to complicate how his/her rights will be given. The only reason corporate lawyers back in the day pushed for corporate PERSONhood and not corporate humanity or anything else is with the 14th amendment, it gives corporations "degree of immunity to government supervision". Which translate to it not being responsible for its negative affects. [7] Same can be said of my opponent's reference to the 1st amendment and just one more source [8], so I will move on to his rebuttal of my case. Rights, my opponent thinks that recognizing corporate personhood is fair and it grants both the people and the corporations the same rights. This is not the case as seen in negative free speech of the first amendment [8]. And it's also not true with the "right" to harm the environment. [9] Corporations can use the 14th amendment to dump waste water into our rivers, can pollute the world we live exponentially more than any individual can, yet while we as true citizens can be jailed for doing any of the above, they get away with a slap on the wrist, if even that. And one of the most important difference between these rights, the liability. [10] If a corporation is charged with a crime, who's responsible? Alright now we are moving on to campaign funds. With our politicians depending on corporations for millions of their fundings, are we really naive enough to believe that corporations has absolutely no influence on the way our country is ran? [11] Even though the drive for profit of corporations can help our economy, it can conflict with our politics with its creation of "corporate-funded think tanks" that creates enormous influence on our government. [12] And we cannot simply forget about a little issue called lobbying. Yes the people can lobby, but the corporation can lobby a heck of a lot louder, longer and stronger with their money and lobbyists employed under them. With both unlimited campaign fundings and a great deal of lobbing power, there is no possible way the Con can call corporations equal to actual human beings. [13] Stand up for We the People, not We the Corporations and vote PRO. Thank you and the debate is back to you Con ^_^ [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://www.citizenworks.org... [4] . http://mw1.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [7] . http://reclaimdemocracy.org... [8] . http://reclaimdemocracy.org... [9] . http://www.californiademocracy.org... [10] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [11] . http://www.opensecrets.org... [12] . http://www.globalissues.org... [13] http:// . http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu...