[quote=SK in CV]
SS benefits and other welfare benefits are not the same. SS benefits are specifically addressed in the 14th amendment as are other federal pension programs. SNAP and WIC payments could stop. SS and other federal pensions can’t without violating the law. It is the exact same violation as not paying interest on notes and bonds or not paying treasury bills when due.

I don’t think there is any logic whatsoever in arguing that the courts would see inaction by congress as a congressional act. Social Security, until changed, doesn’t need periodic appropriations. The trust fund is solvent, possibly even if interest payments stop. The way it’s funded is a permanent appropriation.[/quote]

The first burden of proof would be is social security protected by section 4 of the 14th amendment. Social security was created after the 14th amendment and I’m not aware of any SC ruling that specifically states the current SS law is guaranteed under that section. Maybe there is something in the Nelson ruling that states the courts used the second part of section 4 to arrive at that ruling. SS is protected but in this particular case the plaintiff was disqualified by the rebellion clause. It also possible they didn’t bother with the establishing the burden of proof that SS was protected because the rebellion clause applied anyways so that question didn’t need to be answered. That would be more typical of a supreme court ruling. They don’t usually bother establishing anything beyond the bare minimum.

Of course this is probably moot because congress is going to do something. It would be interesting to see what treasury actually would do if things don’t get resolved. Would they break the debt ceiling using section 4 as justification. Would they bend the rues by issuing high yield bonds with nominal face values. Would they try the trillion dollar coin idea although that also seems to be against a different congress law. Would they prioritize payment or would they actually call the bluff and default on existing debt.