I contributed my comment to the almost 5000 that the article has spawned:
The "experts" who say Obama can ignore the law use an argument that does not pass the guffaw test. The Constitution says debts incurred by the US in accordance with the law cannot be questioned. They reach the conclusion that Obama should therefore break the law because honoring the debt before paying other expenses would be inconvenient. The "experts" have it backwards. The Constitution, by the legal principle that the exception proves the rule, indicates that those new, illegally issued ObamaBonds would not be binding on the US.
"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln