The 14th Amendment...does not say what you wish it to say

First, the full text of 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 suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

HISTORY

The 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution was hotly contested, hence its rather circumspect language. See, in the Constitution, words mean exactly what they say, no more and no less. This amendment was adopted in 1866, in the wake of the Civil War. Mostly, this one was designed to ensure that blacks were citizens with the same full legal rights as whites, an idea that was revolting to the South and even some in the North. Section 4 was included to ensure that states south of the Mason-Dixon Line would regard debts incurred by the Lincoln government fighting the war would be recognized as legit for all.

“Questioned”?

In the past several days, I have heard any number of “opinions” about the meaning of this word, and therefore its implication. Problem is, this sentence has never been litigated up to the Supreme Court, and its correct Constitutional meaning has never been determined. In particular, I am not convinced that reneging on Treasury debt is the same thing as 'questioning the validity' of same: it just means you are a deadbeat, but not necessarily contesting the legitimacy of the debt. It might mean that, but this has never been determined. If I am not correct about this, please do put the Supreme Court case reference in the response box below, won't you?

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

OK, this is the funny (i.e. strange, not funny ha-ha) about this. It is the House, not the Executive, that is tasked with enforcing this amendment. Therefore, if Barry tries to enforce this part, is it Constitutional?