Sure they can. The 14th Amendment regards actual debt issued in exchange for money (T-bills, basically). The “debt” created by legislation like the SS act isn’t the same thing. The gov’t can change the laws requiring payment on such programs (see Flemming v Nestor)
No. Some people have contracts that says the gov’t agrees to pay them as well as money allocated in the federal budget. The gov’t can change the federal budget, but they can’t nullify contracts.
Errr…you realize “Obama” in these posts is purely hypothetical, right? The actual Obama (or his Administration) haven’t mentioned anything about this scheme, and given that they’ve squashed other similar ideas for avoiding the debt ceiling (platinum coin, selling gold reserves) if this idea actually generated enough noise in the press to come to their attention, I’d imagine they’d say they weren’t going to issue scrip either (even though its neither unconstitutional nor stupid).
Work performed for the government is not a debt, it is an obligation. Obligations are contractual matters in which the government satisfies by expending funds. Obligations are not debts within the meaning of the 14th Amendment; the debts referred to by that amendment are the borrowing of funds on the credit of the United States.
The government routinely deobligates funds by modifying or cancelling contracts, and the 14th Amendment has jack-all to do with it.
I agree that the 14th Amendment is not implicated, but if the government cancels the contract after work has been performed, it’s going to get sued for breach of contract.
Just like if it tries to pay someone in scrip for work already performed, it’s probably going to get sued for breach of contract.