Short Textual Exposition

After the beginning, God reconsidered. "Upon further reflection, Let there be Light." Then the Lord saw that it was good.

You see, in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. After the Word, comes the light. The light shone upon the world, which we know to have preceded the light. It's not clear whether the world preceded the Word. If not, we can suspect that the world was designed by the Word. "Let it be dark and wet and still," speaks the Word, "and let nothing happen within it."

If the world preceded the Word, we must expect its qualities were described by a thought. A vision of darkness, wetness, stillness. Perhaps it was the physical manifestation of this ugly image that drove the Lord to proclaim, "Let there be Light." If such were the case, we might reasonably state: "Before the Beginning was the World, and the Lord said, with a tone of disapproval, 'It is too dark. Let there be Light.'"

Around the Beginning,
Was the World
And the World was of God.
The Word falls like a curse
Upon a wayward son.
Stung by the rebuke,
He shines towards his Father.

In the beginning, there was darkness.
Blessed and blameless was the darkness
in the beginning, when the darkness was.

A Quantum Theory of Sovereign Immunity?

Just a quick note here, regarding Alden v. Maine and sovereign immunity.

I'm wondering if there's an argument to be made that the doctrine of sovereign immunity as expounded by Kennedy could be considered violative of the Article IV guarantee of a "Republican Form of Government."

Assume, arguendo that Kennedy is basically right and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity survives wholesale transplantation from a monarchical regime of law to a Republican one. In the monarchical regime, the sovereignty of the state was co-extensive with the body of the King. In a Republican regime, the sovereignty of the state must then be logically co-extensive with the body of the People.

As the ultimate repositories of state sovereignty, "the People" then would each constitute in their person an "atomic unit" of sovereignty.

Now, to state this proposition in its fullest absurdity, one could then argue that "sovereign immunity" is a defense available to any citizen before a court of law (hello, anarchy!).

But why shouldn't individual citizens then inherit a "residuum of sovereign immunity" commensurate with their embodiment of the sovereign authority of their state? Specifically, if a sovereign cannot be prosecuted for lawlessness without its own consent, then no citizen should be held to account for violation of a law of the state of which that citizen is unaware. Ignorance of the law should be a valid excuse under the same logical principles of sovereign immunity (read through the lens of Article IV).

Since a person ignorant of the law cannot give consent to be subject to it, wouldn't it be logically consistent with such a Constitutional theory (untethered as it is from Constitutional text) to allow ignorance as an excuse?

There's more to this than I care to develop at present. But hopefully I'll get back to this line of reasoning.