The term "person" is often applied to corporate entities, referring to legal persons such as corporate bodies chartered by the state. Only by affixing the qualifier "natural" (argues the "originalist") does the phrase concern human beings alone. It is this very distinction that has endowed legal fictions with human rights.
Taking this tack, we must apply the same logic to the term "enemies." When debating issues of national security, we often deploy the term, operating under the assumption that it refers only to human threats. Moreover, the term is used explicitly in the oath of enlistment for military personnel upon their induction to the armed forces ("I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic").
So, what's an enemy? An Islamist terrorist? A Russian spy? Or what about a mosquito carrying malaria? A bacterium that spreads lethal infections? By failing to stipulate that our national defense budget is to be directed only against "human" enemies, isn't it plausible that defense funds can (and should) be used to defend against non-human "enemies" such the AIDS virus, malaria, and various communicable diseases (if not all diseases)?
I say, if corporations can be persons, diseases should be enemies.