If the president has the right to raise the nat'l debt ceiling, that amounts to declaring that there is actually no debt ceiling.

No one said the POTUS would have the right to raise it. Raising it and it being nonexistent are two entirely different things... obviously.

It would amount to one further step down the long path of ceding congressional power to the executive branch.

I don't think you're looking at this in the proper frame, Stucki. "Congress" -- multiple of them -- collectively over time has already voted for the spending in question. Why should any POTUS be forced to choose what spending will or will not be honored because another Congress demands he cut spending because they won't raise the debt ceiling to pay the obligations of the United States? If Congress won't produce a budget with particulars regarding who should be paid and in what amounts -- and this Congress has not -- and also won't raise the debt ceiling in order to pay the debts already authorized by "Congress," then the current Congress is de facto leaving the President no choice but to choose.

This ain't rocket science, Stucki. Republicans cannot govern because they cannot agree on an effing thing. :)

That's not exactly how it would work. There would be two conflicting laws, one blocking the execution of the other. It is the purview of the executive branch to enforce laws, and since it would not be possible to enforce both laws, to the best of my understanding, it would be the duty of the executive branch to decide which law to enforce. If congress disagreed with that decision, they could sue and the courts would adjudicate the dispute.

Doing that would not be a power grab by any branch, but rather a display of the very checks and balances that were built into the constitution to keep any single branch from gaining too much power.

In this particular conflict, there seems to be a more reasonable case to be made in support of not enforcing the debt ceiling due to the 14th amendment, as constitutional law (the 14th amendment would qualify) supersedes federal law (the debt ceiling would qualify). However, that would depend on how the courts interpret the clause "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned." One way or another though, one of the laws, either the debt ceiling or the budgetary appropriations, which were both passed by congress, would need to be ignored, as it would not be possible to carry them both out beyond a certain point.

"Republicans in the House would howl, and when they got done rending their garments in public, they would sue."

Sue about what? Or more to Kick's point, sue on what grounds that the federal courts and the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case and so throw the nation's credit under the bus?

Republicans in the House would howl, and when they got done rending their garments in public, they would sue.

The SCOTUS has held time and time again that in order for a party to have standing to sue, they must prove they suffered/will be likely to suffer some form of direct/substantial injury if the particular wrongdoing is not redressed.

So, I ask you ["you" meaning any person]: Who would have standing to sue the current President of the United States claiming he was directly harmed by raising of the debt ceiling? In forming your answer, keep in mind that the vast majority of these same clowns voted thrice in the affirmative to raise the debt ceiling under the former POTUS and/or didn't move a finger to sue when it was raised all those previous times.

Discuss. :)