I think this is a good suggestion to include a list of legislation related to this topic Constitutionality It seems that the section on constitutionality is missing an obvious point the 14th amendment if interpreted to prohibit a default on the debt clearly would merely require the President to service the debt in the event the debt ceiling is not raised It in no way would authorize the President to increase the debt without congressional approval In particular the argument by Matthew Zeitlin and others mentioned is obviously disingenuous at best and clearly intended to influence only the uninformed For the Supreme Court to uphold the debt limit would in no way in effect be voting for the United States to default It seems obvious that the Court would uphold the constitutionality of the debt limit and rule that the President is obligated to service the debt if the limit is not raised There seems no possible reason for the court to rule otherwise given that the constitution simultaneously requires the debt to be honored and provides that only congress can authorize more debt and given that the President will have the means tax revenues to service the debt whether the debt limit is raised or not Preceding unsigned comment added by Similarly the claim by Jack Balkin Whereas the debt ceiling gives Congress the power for the United States to default on its debts by requiring approval of a higher debt limit is illogical nonsense Requiring approval of a higher debt limit in no way causes a debt default Shouldn t this Wiki article exclude such inane ramblings by those attempting to fraudulently misrepresent the issue to the ignorant Preceding unsigned comment added by I agree with 75 216 35 116 on all of the above and much of this discussion is disingenous I m short on time at the moment but I intend to address the deficit and constitutionality concerns in more depth later For now I think it is important for me to at least say that 1 claiming that certain debators and their arguments on the topic of the d c s constitutionality are disingenuous is PoV or at least very difficult to prove to be such if it actually is I think they re sincere and also correct The fair thing to do then it seems to me is not as you suggest remove them but retain them because I absolutely do not think they are misrepresenting the issue in fact I believe and will elaborate that I think you are misunderstanding a crucial part of their arguments which may be why you think they are being disingenuous but as someone who agrees with them I m convinced that this not the case So please I think the best approach is not to insultingly accuse people of inanely rambling or of fraud and disingenuity but assume good faith and sincerity of disagreement Whilst I do intend to address your points more specifically if you are willing to accept my claim in good faith this alone should mean that no change to the constitutionality sections is warranted nor wise 2 Editted post Goldsmith post I would be happy to elaborate on the idea that we are claiming that the Supreme Court could usurp the authority of congress and effectively authorize debt to be incurred on behalf of the U S against the will of congress No we re making a point about constitutional authority on all appropriations and the executive s ability to respect said Congressional authority which if misunderstood I think is the only way for you to reach the opinion you do i e that the crisis can simply be resolved without raising the debt ceiling AND if necessary without Congress legislating a new level of appopriations with the President selectively defaulting We believe that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional because it prevents the executive from respecting Congressional authority and is therefore unconstitutional and that selective default is sovereign default the consequences of which are more severe than you are anticipating However like Goldsmith argues this is not the place to debate that but if you wish to provide such an avenue I