changes in our culture, did not alter our essential federal constitutional structure. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 159, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (“The actual scope of the Federal Government’s authority with respect to the States has changed over the years ... but the constitutional structure underlying and limiting that authority has not.”). In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L.Ed. 227 (1868), decided the same year the Fourteenth Amendment wa ct of the law [is] to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty .... It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends.... ”); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (<HOLDING>); id. at 72, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (“[W]e reconfirm
recognizing that congress has specifically abrogated the eleventh amendment defense when legislating pursuant to  5 of the fourteenth amendment and its article i  8 plenary power over commerce but refusing to extend authority to abrogate to legislation enacted pursuant to the indian commerce clause the indian gaming regulatory act recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that the eleventh amendment bars con gress from using its power under the indian commerce clause of article i to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts under article iii holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts