Thanks for that information -
so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.
>>so while the spending _was_ appropriated, it was not _authorized_ so 14th amendment won’t fly.<<
You’re welcome, but it would be less confusing if you instead said: Spending was authorized (appropriated), but the debt to fund the spending was not authorized.
Even then, if a contract hasn’t been signed, say with a defense contractor for instance, the spending might have been appropriated, but the government might not yet be on the hook for it and can just revoke the appropriation. Funds are redirected all the time in that manner by all levels of government. Appropriations are essentially budgets set by law and can be changed unless the money is committed by a formal contract with the party providing the service being paid for.
All this talk about using the 14th is just liberal BS, though I have no doubt a liberal would force the issue through the courts if he felt like doing so. Pathetically, a liberal court would probably ignore the Constitution and let it happen, but that’s another issue.