rulings are generally to the effect that § 106(a) fails the second prong of the abrogation test; although Congress obviously intended to abrogate state sovereign immunity when it enacted § 106(a), these circuits have held that it did not act pursuant to a “valid exercise of power” in carrying out that intent. Section 106(a) is an exercise of Congress’s powers under the Bankruptcy-Clause of Article I of the Constitution. See Mitchell, 209 F.3d at 1119; Sacred Heart Hosp., 133 F.3d at 244-45; Fernandez I, 123 F.3d at 245; Schlossberg, 119 F.3d at 1146-47. Although the Supreme Court has yet to address squarely whether the Bankruptcy Clause provides a legitimate basis for abrogation, cf. Tenn. Student Assistance Corp., — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 45, 156 L.Ed.2d 703, the Court’s precedents hav 114 (<HOLDING>). In other words, there is some doubt about
holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that fourteenth amendment is the only recognized source of authority for abrogation holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action