More on the indignities to be prevented

Belated thanks to Greg Sisk for his "federal sovereign immunity" follow-up to my ruminations on what CST has to say about claims of soverignty on behalf of the state or its law.  In teaching federal sov. immunity in the Federal Courts class I defend a position close to the one Greg lays out so nicely, viz., first, that decisions about individual remediation vis-a-vis the state are best settled, for the most part, by Congress and, second, that for some individual legal wrongs no individual remediation may need to be available.  The most troubling strand in the jurisprudence of federal sovereign immunity, to my mind, is the one that submerges the question of just remediation in the "sovereign dignity" (Alden) of the states.  Professor Caminker observes that "According to the Court's phraseology, it is precisely because private persons are deemed beneath the states in state that suits by the former constitute an 'indignity' to the latter. . . .  One therefore cannot easily confine the sovereign immunity doctrine to making a statement about the proper relationship between Congress and the states; it is necessarily makes a statement about the relationship between people and the states as well, and here the expression seems squarely antithetical to the presupposed by popular sovereignty." I'd go him one further and ask where recognizing the places of jurisgenerative communities and, ultimately the sovereignty of God leaves us on the question of the state's role in protecting against indignity; "the sovereignty of the people," unless the phrase be implicitly qualified, is too much to swallow writ large.