Skip to main content

View Diary: Virginia AG Cuccinelli freezes payments to non-profits, says they're "unconstitutional" (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Reading their Constitution (0+ / 0-)

    Although IANAL, it seems to me that it says, quite clearly and beyond question, that the state can't give money directly to charities. I'm not sure how anybody of any party can read it otherwise.

    •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

      But Cooch could have left well enough alone. Unless and until a group w/ standing sought to discontinue the funding on Constitutional grounds, it looked like VA's elected officials were content to leave well enough alone.

      If Cuccinelli hadn't gone and stuck his nose under the tent flap we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

      Again, we'll see. Maybe his next move will be to push for constitutional amendment to correct this legal hiccup. If he does, it won't happen soon enough for these non-profits to get the funds they need to serve Viriginia's neediest.

      No elected official should enjoy more than the worst medical plan available to their constituents. In the US, that would be no plan.

      by pmcmscot on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  but the question has always been (5+ / 0-)

      how does one define what a "charity" is?

      Is is simply an organization that accepts donations?  The language cited about talks about "benevolent purposes"; one could convincibley argue the primary purpose of a free clinic isn't benevolence, but maintaining overall public health. Then the question of how the state funds its mandate to maintain that part of the general welfare could be addressed.  After all, if something is receiving state funds and serving a general welfare function, wouldn't that redefine said organization's activities out of the realm of "charity" and into something else, as of yet not-effectively-named?

      That's what the "historical" or "cultural" end around seemed to be doing, at any rate, calling those purposes something other than "benevolent".

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the big question. Legally speaking, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eclectablog, Cassandra Waites

        aren't these things 'not for profit' institutions? Unless there's some language saying that they're legally considered 'charitable' institutions, who decides? I say that SAIC is a 'charitable' institution.

        And 'controlled by the Commonwealth?' What constitutes control?

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:31:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site