and none of that would have the disruptive effect of throwing the government into constitutional chaos in the middle of all this.
violating the Constitution (which reserves for Congress the right to issue debt) > not spending money that was agreed upon in a budget. the President is not breaking the law if he does not spend money that has not been appropriated by the only branch of Government authorized to do so. The tradition of Presidents refusing to spend money allocated by Congress, in fact, goes back to Jefferson.That would certainly do a lot more to destabilize markets than taking on some additional debt would (which would of course be honored once the debt ceiling is raised or eliminated). As for the President going on trial...well, when there are contradictory laws on the books, there isn't any choice but to violate one law or the other.