Here's a better argument: The Debt Limit is unconstitutional

Here is why I think the Debt Limit is unconstitutional.

14th Amendment, Section 4 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..."

Article 1, Section 8 states: "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

No where does it say in our constitution that we have to have a debt limit. In fact, it explicit states that we can not default on our debt. A debt limit violates that principle because the limit will eventually force the US to default on it's debt.

All we need to do is look at court case McCulloch vs Maryland (1819)

In that case, the Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.

This fundamental case established the following two principles:

• The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
• State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

As a result, because the Republican controlled House passed a budget that Obama signed into law with a deficit. The authority of the spending bill should have implicit power to raise the debt ceiling regardless. The budget signed into law gives the treasury a implicit legality to borrow, and the debt limit directly conflicts with this. At the very least, there is precedence for the Supreme Court to rule that a implied power given by the constitution can be used to create a functional government. In 1917, Congress passed the Debt ceiling law that has created a dysfunctional government when it comes to deciding the budget!!! (Does anyone honestly think our congress today is functional??). As such, a default would create a dysfunctional government since the government would not be able to meet its obligation's as mandated by Congress's budget signed into law.

Interesting tidbit: this country had more budget surpluses with out a debt limit. This country did just fine without a debt limit and I'd argue that the debt limit is almost an excuse for our government to borrow more and more. It has not done it's job of "controlling debt" like it was intended for.

The only thing a debt limit does is allow our Congress to vote twice on how much they want to spend and borrow. So the debt limit is unconstitutional because it will force the US to default on it's debt due to the fact it's subject to partisan bickering and the whim of whatever political parties are in control.

Article/Document:

Beyond Balanced Budgets, Fourteenth Amendment Style

To quote from the article:

"Regardless of which governmental obligations would be unconstitutional to repudiate, the federal debt-limit statute makes train wrecks and thus repudiation possible. Although the debt-limit statute is theoretically written in pursuance of goals that the hypothetical Fiscal Commitments Amendment also seeks to attain, it works counter to the Amendment's goal of ensuring the validity of bond debt. The statute precludes government borrowing above a level that Congress has set, even if that borrowing is needed to meet expenses required to honor existing debts. Whether the statute in fact increases or decreases the probability of default or investor confidence is impossible to determine a priori. Under the objective and subjective tests for debt repudiation discussed above, however, it is not necessary to weigh these effects speculatively, and the statute flunks at least the objective test and possibly the subjective test also"