Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale University. He is the author of the "America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By."

Legally and practically, we must distinguish between “debts,” strictly speaking, and all other spending authorized or mandated by current law.

America’s bondholders and others who have lent money to the government must be paid first for three reasons. First, the 14th Amendment requires that these “debts” for past loans must be paid in full, on time, as promised — no ifs, ands, or buts. Second, even if the Constitution did not require this policy, sound business sense does require it. Unless all bondholders and moneylenders are paid as promised, borrowing costs for the United States going forward might rise catastrophically (just as interest payments rise if someone misses a credit card payment). Third, the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and this status might be imperiled by any technical default or nonpayment of bondholders.

If you are trying to play the hostage game, it generally makes sense to point the gun at someone else’s head, not your own.



At the other end of the spectrum, consider a doctor who has yet to perform a medical procedure that would ordinarily be covered by the federal government under Medicare or Medicaid. Or consider a federal park ranger who has yet to show up for work next week, as provided for in his contract. No “debt” has yet been created for these not-yet-performed jobs; and folks in this category might have to wait to get their money. Making these folks wait for their money would not violate the Constitution, nor would it risk economic Armageddon (though it will be a significant drag on the sputtering recovery and a real confidence-depressor).

Lots of other payments might fall between these two poles. For example, are Social Security payments more like interest payments on bonds, or more like salaries for park rangers?

There will likely be enough new money coming into federal coffers every day to pay off all the true “debt” -- especially if the government can sell off certain assets, legally, at any time.

But there will not be enough new money to pay off all the other legally authorized items, in full and on time. The person who will make the key decisions about who gets paid first, and what gets sold off first, will be a Democratic President.

So why are Republican House members so eager to give this enormous power/discretion to their nemesis, Barack Obama? If you are trying to play the hostage game, it generally makes sense to point the gun at someone else’s head, not your own.