Corporations Are People and Should Be Granted the Rights of People

As was stated at the beginning of Round One, we will be debating whether or not corporations are humans and if the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States of America apply to them as well. In his opening argument, my opponent made an avid comparison between that of a living organism and that of a corporation. In his reasoning, he made a vital connection between the two, but failed to address the main issue at hand: what the Bill of Rights and Constitution say about these rights and how they can be applied to corporations. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" The key component of what Mr. Jefferson had said was "men". The definition of the word "men", according to www.dictionary.com, is as follows: "a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex". According to this definition, "men", are Homo sapiens, otherwise known as humans. The definition of a corporation, according to www.dictionary.com, is as follows: "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" According to this definition, "corporations" are groups of individuals that are brought together by law, not relying on those individuals for its existence, and not possessing the powers of its members. By these definition, Thomas Jefferson was explaining the rights of life, liberty, and happiness that humans have. This cannot be extended to other living organisms. This means that animals, aliens, and if we are to consider them to be living organisms, corporations, cannot be given these rights. Said rights may be granted by Takac, but he was not involved in the creation, writing, or publishing of any of the founding documents of the United States of America. His views do not represent that of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Outside of referencing Takac, my opponent failed to explain how corporations can be considered human. They have entirely different definitions. An important example of the differences in the rights granted to different organisms can be found with the idea of "animal rights". Despite being living organisms, as my opponent claims corporations are, they do not have the same rights as humans. We are allowed to kill them, use them in religious ceremonies, and do other activities to and with them that would be considered a violation of either the law or the Constitution if done to humans. They had to be given an entirely separate set of rights by lawmakers to ensure that they are treated decently. As was explained above, corporations are not humans, and like animals, have an entirely different set of rights. The beliefs that Jefferson outlined within America's Declaration of Independence, as talked about above, can easily be extended to the Bill of Rights and the whole of the American Constitution. Throughout their whole, they specifically use the word "people". Such examples include, "We the people, of the United States...", "..or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...". According to www.dictionary.com, the definition of the word "people" is as follows: "human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings" This definition clearly states that "people" are multiple human beings. They are to be separate from that of other beings, and are brought together in no other way than existing. Given this definition, we can clearly see that the Constitution of the United States of America was talking about human beings and no other form of living beings. As was stated before, my opponent has thus far failed to explain how a corporation can be considered a "human", thus meaning that these rights, and the constitution as a whole, cannot apply to a corporation. An argument that my opponent is surely considering is that a corporation is a collection of human beings, and that people are a collection of human beings as well. This would mean that the words "people" and "corporation" are synonymous, meaning that the constitution must apply to corporations as well. While it may appear this way at first, the faults in this argument are to be found within the details of their definitions. "People" are a group of humans. There is no further distinction within this definition. A "corporation", on the other hand has a great deal of specifications. It is not merely a group of humans, but an association of humans that have been brought together by law. This distinction is important, as it reveals that without the law bringing them together, they are not a collection of humans. An even greater distinction can be found later in the definition of a corporation. It is independent from the existence of its members, and does not rely on the powers of its members. This means that the corporation is separate from the individuals that compose it, both in its existence and in its abilities. An example of this would be how a corporation can fire its employees. When the employee has been fired, they are no longer part of the corporation. Their existence inside and outside of the corporation does not determine the existence of the corporation itself. Above all though, the powers of the people in the corporation do not become the powers of the corporation itself. The people in a corporation and the corporation itself are distinct entities with their own powers. By this, we must acknowledge that the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States unto the people of the United States do not become the rights of the corporations that these people work for. Their rights are separate, and cannot be extended to one another. Hopefully I have managed to debunk the ideas that corporations can be considered to be humans, that the rights talked about in the Constitution apply to them, and that the rights of those that work in corporations can be extended to corporations themselves. Thank you for wishing me a speedy recovery. I look forward to seeing the rest of your arguments.