the people within the text of the Constitution know no such limitation. And as we shall see, the Court in Alden intended no such limitation. {27} The Court in Alden, 527 U.S. at 740, 119 S.Ct. 2240, acknowledged the difference between a claim asserted against a state under a congressional statute as opposed to one derived directly from the Bill of Rights. Although sovereign immunity may shield states from liability under certain Article I obligations created by Congress, the balance of power shifts when “the obligation arises from the Constitution itself.” Id. (distinguishing Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 115 S.Ct. 547, 130 L.Ed.2d 454 (1994), from the facts presented in Alden); see also Cent. Virginia Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, -, 126 S.Ct. 990, 1004, 163 L.Ed.2d 945 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The Court in Alden, 527 U.S. at 713, 119
holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity holding that state sovereign immunity did not bar a claim based on bankruptcy proceedings under article i section 8 clause 4 because states agreed in the plan of the convention to be subject to such suits holding a foreclosure claim on a municipal tax lien asserted against the state was barred by sovereign immunity but sovereign immunity would not bar the bank from seeking just compensation for the states taking of its property as a result of the allegedly unpaid taxes under the takings clause as applied to the states under the fourteenth amendment