because the “p ary Educ. Expense Bd., 131 F.3d 353, 361, 45 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (3d Cir.1997) (stating that the right to be free of unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1994), does not implicate a property right under the Fourteenth Amendment and noting: “If a state’s conduct impacting on a business always implicated the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress would have almost unrestricted power to subject states to suit through the exercise of its abrogation power. Congress could pass any law that tangentially affected the ability of businesses to operate and then create causes of action against the states in federal court if they infringed on those federally created rights.”); cf. In re Creative Goldsmiths, Inc., 119 F.3d 1140, 1146-47 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1517, 140
holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that congress could not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity under the bankruptcy code because if the fourteenth amendment is held to apply so broadly as to justify congress enactment of the bankruptcy code as a requirement of due process then the same argument would justify every federal enforcement scheme as a requirement of due process under the fourteenth amendment holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment