E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Brad DeLong is a very good economist, from whom I've learned a lot about the Great Depression and the Great Recession. And, he's a pretty good polemicist. But, he's not a lawyer, and has to rely on others for his legal arguments. His sources on the Section 4 argument aren't all that great.
The apologia: I should have realized that, incentives being what they are, you probably can find an argument for any constitutional proposition whatever made at a point when the argument had little political traction. I've now read Michael Abramowicz's article (available only on pay services, I believe), and he does approach, but doesn't quite make, the current Section 4 argument. His most direct argument is that a debt-ceiling statute is inconsistent with a constitutional amendment he proposes (a version of a Balanced Budget Amendment), and you can infer from his argument, and his presentation of the originalist material about Section 4, that he would have argued that debt ceiling legislation is currently unconstitutional had he thought it worth making. He does cite in a footnote two newspaper editorials from 1995 saying that "default on the debt would be unconstitutional," which isn't quite the point at issue. But, it is in the ballpark.
The Perry dictum is just that, a dictum from a plurality opinion, from which one can infer something about its author's possible views about debt ceiling legislation. For myself, neither the article nor the dictum constitutes a rebuttal to the argument that the Section 4 argument was "off the wall" six months ago. But, both do indicate that the materials were available then from which the Section 4 argument could be constructed, so my (modest) apologia.
But, to reiterate, the Section 4 argument, as I understand it, has to be coupled with a Take Care and Appropriations Clause argument to have any bearing on current issues. Standing alone, the pre-2011 materials say something about actual repudiation of the debt, but nothing, at least insofar as I've found them, about Treasury's priorities in allocating incoming tax revenues. And that, I think, is what the current issue is.