It's not a 'belief', it's backed up by empirical evidence.
You're just repeating yourself though. The US government has large numbers of obligations outside of simply servicing its debt. It is highly likely that bond markets will note the failure of the US government to meet its other obligations as a sign of increased future risk, and we face considerably higher rates because of this. Not only that, but the removal of so much cash from the US economy all at once would certainly trigger a catastrophic economic chain reaction.
It's nice to see that you're a constitutional scholar and all so that you can answer with such certainty that question that is dividing actual constitutional scholars, but I more mean that in this case it's sort of irrelevant as to whether it's Constitutional or not, because the Republicans would have no way to stop him.
Presidents have frequently acted in ways that are likely outside their constitutional authority in the past to protect America from threats that they deem to be dire enough. The effects of this would likely be far more severe than any terrorist attack, and so taking a constitutionally controversial position on this case might just be what Obama needs to do to save the US from the insane people in the House. That's what I meant about taking one for the team.
Yeah, sure it is. Like I said, we'll see how long it takes to get out of this.
Obama should tell the bond markets that they will never default on the debt, because there really isn't any reason to.
And Obama takes an unconstitutional view on a lot things. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he did that.