Such an argument is absurd...and here is why.
The 14th Amendment states:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
So what does this mean...does it mean that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional? I would say not in any way....the amendment itself clearly states that such debt must be authorized by law. The Constitution is fairly clear on who is able to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article 1 Section 8), and such power does not rest with the Executive.
Additionally, Article 1 Section 7 adds more clarity to the point by stating "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Again, meaning that the Executive simply cannot decide how much money it spends...that power clearly lies with Congress.
So, it seems fair to argue that debt, that has been authorized by law, (ie Congress) will not be questioned. It seems a stretch to me to argue that if Congress refuses (at the moment) to authorize more debt, that the Executive somehow has the power to do it for them, especially given the language is Article 1 Section 8.
Additionally, failure to raise the debt ceiling does not automatically equate to default. The Treasury Secretary is able to designate revenue first for debt payments (even if no debt limit raise occurs), and would be able to make payments, resulting in cuts in other places.
It is the ultimate false choice to argue that either Congress must cave and raise the debt limit, or the president must act dictatorially, as the Constitution allegedly authorizes him to do...but that is the argument we keep hearing. Sad really.
