view, the Fifth Amendment is “self-executing.” Requiring further governmental action when it is the government that has effected the taking is contrary to the very reason for the Fifth Amendment: a check against abusive governmental power. If we were to accept the State’s argument, New Mexico would be the first and only jurisdiction in the nation to apply this Tucker Act analysis to state court proceedings. We decline to do so. {44} The State agencies do not rest with the previous argument. They further contend that the Takings Clause is not self-executing as applied to the states because it is applied through Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and only Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment can abrogate sovereign immunity. See Seminole Tribe of Fla., 517 U.S. at 59, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (<HOLDING>). Section 1 says, “nor shall any State deprive
holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding section 1 of the fourteenth amendment includes prohibitions on traditional state power holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action