The 14th amendment says that the "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, [...] shall not be questioned."

So my understanding of Congress rules is that Congress spends money, or authorizes the spending, by way of Appropriations bills. But when the national debt nears the "self imposed debt limit", we have to have discussions to raise that limit. Isn't having a limit for debt that Congress has already authorized a type of challenge to that appropriation process? It's like Congress is questioning itself about the nation's debt.

Put another way, if Congress wants to "limit debt" then they simply should not authorize the appropriation of funds to be spent. Simple as that. It makes no sense to authorize debt and then get their knickers in a bunch to complain about how much debt they've collectively authorized. Yet this happens every few years or so.

When people talk about POTUS invoking the 14th amendment to avoid a default, is this what they are talking about? Bringing a legal challenge against Congress for questioning their own authorized debt? When this fiasco is settled and hopefully Congress agrees on a new debt limit, could American citizens bring a suit well in advanced of the next time this happens? Credit ratings have already resulted in higher interest rates. (Damages?) Probably a long shot but I would like for SCOTUS to rule on this in a time where it isn't an emergency so that the precedent is set for when it might need to be used. Even better would be for SCOTUS to say that a debt limit is unconstitutional because Congress already authorized the debt in their appropriations bills so they must pay for those appropriations or amend them.