" March 2009 (UTC) 

 ::::: That's nice, but it's original research, and it's original research that does little more than refight the losing side of the Alden trilogy. It would be bad enough for the article to present as current doctrine a view of sovereign immunity that is based on original research, but worse yet for that view to be a conception that the court has rejected! The primary sources you cite are the raw materials of an argument, but they are not conclusive as to your position in themselves (regardless of the merits vel non of that position), and at Wikipedia, the necessary jump from these materials to the conclusion you're driving at is not allowed. (I will note that while you can probably find a way to get this argument into the article in an appropriate manner - cannibalizing Justice Souter's excellent Alden dissent, perhaps - my own view is that you're really on the wrong tracks in how you're thinking about sovereign immunity, both as a doctrinal and original matter, and I think you're asking the evidence you've adduced to do much more work than it can bear. Just my two cents.)- Simon Dodd { ···WP:LAW } 01:01, 27"