John Boehner, Acting Unconstitutionally?

The antics of the budget shadow show in Washington are fully displaying the fact that our "leaders" are morons or worse.
The so-called tea party types love to cite the Constitution as their only motivator.
They claim this document has been ignored and trashed by the establishment politicians over many years.
In many ways they are right.
In many ways the Constitution is not the wonderful God-given document we might wish to think it is.
But the majority of Congress is now obviously wiping its collective ass with the Constitution when they stand  with the intent to repudiate the debt. They are purposely ignoring their duties or they do not understand the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to "pay the debt" in Article 1, Section 8.
That implies that no one else in government has that power including the President.
Obviously the Founders would be amazed and confused that Congress would refuse to pay the bills, essentially abrogating their responsibilities under the Constitution. The Constitution never implies that the debt should not be paid. On the contrary, the founding document does not allow Congress to repudiate debt.
The 14th Amendment  reinforces this responsibility of the Congress, as the sole authorized agent of the government, to pay the debt.
From Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppression of insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
In questioning this debt the Congress is acting in an unconstitutional manner.
The Founders did not anticipate that Congress could act so irresponsibly and the Constitution does not address the possibility that Congress would come under the control of irrational rebels, corporate tools, and delusionary madmen.
Some say the President has the right to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, but I disagree.
Only Congress has the power to pay the bills. The fact that they are not doing that reveals that they hate this document they love to cite selectively and wave around to justify their idiocy.
Congress is now being manipulated by the spiritual heirs and in some cases, actual descendants, of those who made rebellion and insurrection against the United States. They are liars when they claim they are following the Constitution. They are, in fact, rebelling against it.
They are especially motivated by their hatred of a President who they, in their heart of hearts, would like to see on the plantation picking cotton.
At the very least, the President must make the Constitutional argument to the Supreme Court that Congress is abrogating their responsibility. This, he is unlikely to do. The President just wants to make love to Republicans, foolishly thinking they will tolerate him in return.
What would happen if the Supreme Court sided with the fools in Congress is another matter.
Or, what would happen if Congress refused to follow an order by the Court to pay the bills is even another matter.
At that point, the President, under his oath to protect the Constitution, might think about arresting members of Congress as rebels and insurrectionists who had failed to carry out their official duties.
That would be fun.

Tea bagger demanding selective fealty to the Constitution.

Addendum:

I have nothing against cutting government spending, by the way. 

But when my bills get too high, I cut back current and future spending. 

I don't decide to just stop paying and repudiate my debt.
That would be wrong, especially if I had the power to create money out of nothing, which the Congress has.

The argument in which Congress must needs  engage will be a difficult and distasteful enterprise for all. 

General laws to "balance the budget" are an obvious evasion of responsibility.
Repudiating the debt is unconstitutional.
They are stage tricks designed to destroy popular social programs that otherwise would be invulnerable to direct attack.
What specific spending must be cut by the Congress?
Answering that question is the essential task of those elected to that body.
They must debate these issues publicly, not spring on the public the wicked spawn of secret talks held in camera.

If they need to choose between war and social security, they need to have an adult and public debate on that. 

If they need to choose between raising taxes on the very rich and shutting down Veteran's Hospitals, they must do it for all to see and hear.
It they need to choose between protecting the environment and giving tax breaks to oil corporations, they need to have a public debate on that too.
If they need to inflate the dollar so that old debt is cheaper, they need to discuss that. 

Math is hard.