Via Insty (via volokh) , saw a proposed People’s Rights Amendment. It begins,
We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Prof. Reynolds wants to respond with a “Tar and Feather” Amendment. I disagree. The PRA will do a tremendous amount of good…with the right tweak.
Rep. McGovern just needs to be disabused of the delusion that “people” and “state” are synonymous. Strange, isn’t it? He sees the difference between “natural persons” and “corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities”…then confuses people with abstract governments and Congress and the States. How to best sum up this blind spot?
Wait, the name is “Jim”, not “Jane”, right? Congressman McGovern: I apologize for getting your name wrong. Apart from the curious omission, I agree entirely with your philosophy.
We can’t actually implement it, of course. Not without rewriting the very Constitution. But I’m down with it, since that chore has needed doing since the 1930’s. We’ll definitely improve the Constitution 2.0 by stipulating that only individual human beings have rights. We’ll state plainly that nothing else does, not associations nor corporations nor governments. Those things are merely tools designed to serve real people, and have no more “rights” than does a car or a spreadsheet or a gun.
Nice start, Jim! You are correct: tools do not have rights. Now you just need to realize that the States and Congress and U.S. Federal Government are nothing but a bunch of tools.
World's Only Rational Man 
In Austrian law there are two kinds of persons: legal persons and natural persons. Legal persons can be anything. A client in a law suit or a large corporation. The natural person is, of course, the fellow with the birth certificate. A legal person has rights. Period. That’s why companies can deal with law suits.
I don’t deny we have to have legal protections and responsibilities for various aggregates of natural persons. The need for that is how we’ve gotten to this point. What I’d like is another term for the “rights” of abstract entities, as I don’t equate them with the rights of you and me.
Of course, a lot of the abuses we have in the U.S. would vanish right after we passed a “loser pays legal fees” law. You have that over there, right?
I actually don’t know. But I know that not always does the loser pay the fees. More often than not is it the tax payer who has to pay, because many cases in civil courts these days are financial themed and with the fact that people are more and more thinking “why work when I can get more money from the government for not working” more and more people can’t pay for the legal fees (partly thanks to most of those government aid payments not counting as income and thus can’t be used for paying legal fees, and other things), it’s the tax payer who pays for these people.