Most of the thought experiments related to using the 14th Amendment to deal with the deb ceiling impasse have revolved around what would happen if President Obama were to choose to just declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge his constitutional interruption. To really understand how legitimate the 14th amendment option is, it important to also think what would the outcome in a reversed situation where government contractors, employees, bond holders, soldiers, doctors, senior citizens, etc… all could, in theory, have standing to constitutionally change a failure to raise the debt ceiling.

Imagine i,f instead of the House Republicans posturing, they simply declared they won’t raise the debt ceiling under any conditions, regardless of the concession Democrats were prepared to make. In this scenario also picture that the Obama administration was trying to still operate under the debt limit after it is reached. Eventually some group of people who where previously promised money by the government won’t get paid as a result. What do people think would happen a group of these bond holders, individuals on government pension and government contractors eventually filled suit on the basis of the 14th amendment?

I simply can’t see how the Supreme Court could fail to rule in their favor. It is pretty clear section 4 of the 14th amendment was written was the expressed purpose of prevent such a scenario.

Anyone who has been watching the Roberts Court should see they have a clear pro-business bias. Does anyone honestly believe the Roberts Courts would come up with a non-literalist interruption of the 14th amendment that would allow for default and as a result cause significant damage to a huge sections of the business community?

I don’t just think the President could “get away” with using the 14th amendment solution because no one would want to challenge it. It would seems in any plausible scenario where the constitutionality of the debt ceiling would actually be challenged, that the Supreme Court could not s strike it down, because it is unconstitutional.