It is unconstitutional for the US government to repudiate debt that has been validly authorized.
Default is another matter. In the case of default, the government is not claiming creditors do not have the right to be paid, or that the debt is not valid. It is valid, they do have the right to be paid. It's just that the government has empty pockets. Creditors can go to court and get a valid judgment on defaulted debt. If they're lucky, maybe they can foreclose on the Grand Canyon.
great point - why doesn’t the government sell some of its vast assets to make ends meet.
oil rights in Alaska, real estate, admission rights to national monuments, space shuttles-—there are tons of assets.
“If they’re lucky, maybe they can foreclose on the Grand Canyon.”
Actually, given the massive amounts of federal land out West, I wonder whether it would be hypothetically possible for China to sue in court and obtain title to great swaths of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska etc. in exchange for the hundreds of billions we owe them. After all, in a bankruptcy proceeding, someone who has defaulted on a debt isn’t off scot-free. Whatever remaining assets they do have end up being divided up among various creditors etc. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see any legal grounds for arguing that the feds should be able to hang on to land assets also presumably worth hundreds of billions even as it defaults on debts of equal size etc.