General Discussion

Notwithstanding folks throwing around terms like stare decisis and precedent, the Perry case, if anything, may help those opposed to the use of the 14th Amendment to address the current debt ceiling crisis more than it helps those in favor.

Why? Because the Perry case involved the adoption of a resolution by Congress that, in the words of the Court, constituted a "complete repudiation of the gold clause in some 18 billion dollars of outstanding bonds of the United States". The Court also found that the purpose and effect of the resolution was to abrogate, nullify, and invalidate obligations entered into by the United States.

In the case of the debt ceiling crisis, Congress is not nullifying, abrogating, or rendering invalid any obligations. The result of not extending the debt ceiling means that the government will default on its obligations, but it will not mean those obligations no longer exist. Indeed, as additional revenues are received by the government in the form of tax revenues and other fees, those who are owed money by the government would have a claim on those funds.

There's a reason why the 14th Amendment hasn't been used to address previous debt ceiling impasses (just as there is a reason that the Impoundment Act of 1974 has never been used). Anyone who thinks the issues presented are simple and easily resolved is fooling themselves.