petitioner, the property or revenue of the petitioner, or any income-producing powers.’ ” Addison Cmty. Hosp., 175 B.R. at 649 (quoting 121 Cong. Rec. H39409-10 (daily ed. Dec. 9, 1975) (statement of Rep. Edwards)). The United States Supreme Court has also repeatedly discussed the need for respect of state sovereignty and has found that Congress and the federal courts should not interfere with legitimate state interests even in the context of a municipal bankruptcy. See United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27, 51-52, 58 S.Ct. 811, 82 L.Ed. 1137 (1938) (finding that amendment to Bankruptcy Act was constitutional because it did not “impinge upon the sovereignty of the State”); Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 298 U.S. 513, 531-32, 56 S.Ct. 892, 80 L.Ed. 1309 (1936) (<HOLDING>). More recently, in a matter strikingly similar
holding that amendment to bankruptcy act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon state sovereignty recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself recognizing that palmyra is under united states sovereignty holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional