To be labeled an american company should they be allowed to outsource almost all their jobs.

Thank you for the debate. Okay, from the outset let me say Con’s position is that theoretically is preferable to Pro’s position which in practice leads to problems, some mentioned by my opponent already, specifically labor. However, let me take me entertain Con’s side a moment longer because I think it is incredibly sensible as an idea. By allowing large multinational corporations to receive generous subsidies, carve out loopholes to avoid paying taxes (that would otherwise go toward basic services including roads, schools, teachers et cetera), and not only is it true they reap the rewards but over the last several decades they have taken become more rapacious by outsourcing jobs to other countries. So I want to concede those indisputable points because they are likely the ones my opponent is going to refine over the course of our debate. Okay, so am I adopting my opponent’s position and conceding the debate? No, with all the horrible dysfunctional features of multinational corporations, it proves easier to defend than the one from the other side. How is this so? First, let me note that technically an American (federal chartered) is problematic, meaning while federally chartered companies exist they are the exception, to the rule: state charted corporations. Quick explanation: what is a charter? Corporations exist through charters. Charters are existential contracts between states and companies granting rights as well as protections under a particular, meaning individual state’s specific legal framework. For instance, roughly 60% of the 500 largest corporations incorporated in the state of Delaware. One salient standout is Walmart, whose total employees outnumber the entire population of the state and then some. Question: why is a company like Walmart, Goldman Sachs, or BP chartered in that particular state—especially since their presence and profit from the state is nominal? Simple Answer: corporations incorporate, gain charters from Delaware because the state since the early 1910s has a reputation for protecting corporations from litigation from outside parties, wide latitude in the creation and structure of a company’s internal affairs, and the Delaware legal system is, for anyone aspiring to become a wealth corporate attorney the only body of law that matters. [Ancillary question readers might ask out of curiosity why does Delaware prostitute itself to business. Again, quick simple: the state derives a large proportion of their revenue from the initial and annual fees of those charters. This is in effect a steady stream of revenue and residence of Delaware gain the benefit that with this supplementary form of revenue they can pay less for the services. Quick history of business charters Assuming that everyone is familiar and well-versed in earlier Colonial history to realize the thirteen colonies, were original chartered as joint-stock companies, for-profit businesses, handed out by the English crown for political reasons or as a substitute for decades accrued from quixotic military ventures on the continent. Later the colonies, then states that comprise the United States continued in this fashion. There are number of historical, political, and economic context to consider but because I have already notice a tendency so far to follow digression for longer than needed I will overlook. Getting to the point, the system that exists today would be difficult to dismantle. But what if we did dismantle this system? Well, likely anyone who has an interest in the Constitution as well as an interest in understanding how it works in practice knows such an act (assuming in some hypothetical pipedream legislation could pass) would immediately and without a doubt be ruled unconstitutional. Why would it be unconstitutional? I am only an admirer of our legal system and do not profess to be well versed in the arcane minutia of Constitutional law but every American should know it violates: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Con-tracts.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 1 [I]n the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed. [For those who want to read the best legal mind in American history should take the time and read some of Chief Justice Marshall’s majority decisions, they are revered in legal circles in the same way religious observers treat sacred text.] Precedent on such issues is so vast that even in a jackass like myself can think up one from high school history class: Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518 (1819).[1] Overall, this post has been a series of digressions but I would like to believe there is redeemable material embedded throughout. So what do I want readers to take away from Pro first round statements? Corporate Charters How states are the primary actors in incorporation/creation History and organization of the American economic system and its legal underpinnings Issues I expect my opponent to raise after reading first round comments: Pro is circumventing the larger framework of the debate, one centered on the normative issue “should.” That is fair. However, any successful normative debate as well as advocate or dissent must consider or even imagining what such proposals would look like. [1] Constitutional cases although has all the excitement of putting up drywall sheets, often provides some pretty contentious battles (read the best dissents of Holmes or another great dissenter Ruth Bader Ginsburg today. Anyway, I want to provide a link to the transcript of the Courts cases because readers may not know how to access these resources: https://supreme.justia.com... However, if you just want the barebones, a quick summary you can check it out here: http://www.oyez.org... The website above provides access to just about every major and minor SC decision you could ever desire