The problem with 1 is that, if the Supreme Court rules that the debt ceiling limit is constitutional, then the US is right then, as of the moment of the ruling, in default. That's an insanely risky gamble.
"I have directed the Treasury Department to continue honoring our financial commitments to bondholders. My administration will ignore any rulings, by any court, or judge, that would seek to impair all or part of this order, as such rulings would be unconstitutional. I will not allow legal technicalities or political games to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America. It it so decided."
I would say these words.
That is not at all how the Constitution is set up. There is no explicit power for the executive to ignore the judicial. It has happened once in US history, when Andrew Jackson continued his genocide against the Cherokee after the Supreme Court had ordered it stopped. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!", Jackson supposedly said.
It would be a VERY BAD precedent to do that again. It would be a huge step towards enshrining the President as a dictator.
But there is: it's called the Constitution. Not any particular clause or article, but the whole document. The executive is allowed to check the judicial if the judicial ignores the Constitution. How else is the executive supposed to check the judicial?
> It would be a VERY BAD precedent to do that again.
It would be a bad precedent, but it would be an even worse precedent for the Supreme Court to force the government to default on its debt. The least bad of the two evils would be for the government to continue paying its debt by waving the debt ceiling away.
> But there is: it's called the Constitution. Not any particular clause or article, but the whole document
Then it's not in the constitution.
> The executive is allowed to check the judicial if the judicial ignores the Constitution.
He is? Where, specifically, does it say that?
> How else is the executive supposed to check the judicial?
He's not. The senate is, by impeachment.
Stop making stuff up, and actually read what's there.
Pardons and nominating judges. Disregarding the Court is a constitutional crisis.
> would be an even worse precedent for the Supreme Court to force the government to default on its debt
On one hand, we have the Court allowing the President to overrule the Congress. Two branches agree. On the other hand, we have the President unilaterally overruling the Congress and the Court. One is a check. The other a coup.
Then a constitutional crisis there shall be. Words don't scare me. If a "constitutional crisis" means the government _doesn't_ default on its debt and some politicians and pundits cry foul, and nothing else changes under the heavens, then let's have a "constitutional crisis".
> On the other hand, we have the President unilaterally overruling the Congress and the Court. One is a check. The other a coup.
Congress can impeach and convict if it's such a big deal. Until they do...
In what universe is constitutional crisis, the suspension of the rule of law, not cause a default? You’re trading a minor infraction for a major one. This is a false economy.
> Congress can impeach and convict if it's such a big deal. Until they do
Police can arrest me if murder is such a big deal.
Straw man. We aren’t saying there couldn’t be a situation where causing social and economic meltdown is valid. If America is threatening global nuclear war, yes, causing it to burn into a deep depression and possibly dictatorship is worth risking. You’re doing that to avoid technical default, which would occur anyway in case of a constitutional crisis.
Earlier, you conditioned: “if a "constitutional crisis" means the government _doesn't_ default on its debt…” That isn’t a valid condition. If the Congress and Court say debt limit, and the President tries to override, you get a constitutional crisis and legal default, on America’s debt, but also everything else.
That is totally not how this works. But if it did... what decisions would you have the executive ignore? Dred Scott? That would be fine. The one in 1942 that allows the Interstate Commerce clause to apply to what is clearly in-state commerce? Yeah, that one, too.
How about Roe v. Wade? That was pretty clearly going beyond the bounds of the Constitution. ("Penumbra"? Why not just admit that you're stretching it past the breaking point?) Do you really want Richard Nixon deciding whether he can throw out Roe v. Wade?
The one time that I know of where the president blatantly threw out a Supreme Court decision was when Andrew Jackson ignored the court's decision that whites could not encroach on Cherokee land.
Do you really want the president deciding which Supreme Court decisions are "clearly unconstitutional"? Not only is the president less of a constitutional scholar than the justices are, he is also more blatantly political than they are. He's going to judge the judges' decisions? That's a terrible idea, and it's absolutely not how checks and balances work.
And the fact that you think that is both good and constitutional makes me really unimpressed with your view that the debt ceiling is clearly unconstitutional...
That is not even remotely true. That is not a power of the executive branch, which is supposed to uphold the law.