I am in no way a legal scholar, in any sense of the word. My academic experience has been purely business-related (accounting). Your book has been my first real brush with the topic of Constitutional law. That being said, I defiantly understand and-as a principle-agree with the idea of Article III and the 10th Amendment.
But that nagging question keeps coming back for me. What should of happened? If the State of Georgia stood on the concept of “we can’t be taken to court unless we consent” seems problematic. Should the South Carolinian just taken his lumps and said “well, live and learn.” I guess it all flies in the face of what I’ve learned is the Libertarian stance on Gov’t. That its main role (if any) should be to protect private property. I appreciate, you Professor Gutzman, helping me figure this out.