We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble to the Constitution
Does anyone dispute that the President is faced with breaking at least one law if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling?
1. If the debt ceiling is reached, the President cannot spend funds allocated by Congress. This is a violation of the law.
2. If the President orders spending despite reaching the debt ceiling, he is violating the debt ceiling law.
The Constitution cannot intend such a situation, in which a President has no way out but to break one of two laws. It is an untenable position that by definition is contrary to at least the preamble to the Constitution. How can it be a "more perfect union" to set up a situation in which the President has no choice but to break one or another law? (Similarly, but a different point, is how can it be for the general welfare to plunge the United States and the world into economic chaos through default?).
The President should announce that because of this, if the Republicans do not raise the debt ceiling, he will choose to ignore that law in order to comply with the law that he must spend funds that have been allocated. He will therefore order spending beyond the debt ceiling.
The Platinum coin is a cute fig leaf, but it evades the central dilemma. It cannot be constitutional for the President to be forced to break one of two laws.
This seems so simple to me. Am I missing something?