States. D.Plaintiffs Constitutional Claims Plaintiff alleges violations of several amendments to the United States Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment right to due process, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery. None of the provisions cited by plaintiff is money-mandating. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. See Le-Blanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“[T]he Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments [and] the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... [are not] a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of money by the government.”); Mullenberg v. United States, 857 F.2d 770, 773 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Pleasant-Bey v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl.
holding that the due process and equal protection clauses do not trigger tucker act jurisdiction in the courts holding that due process and equal protection clauses of fourteenth amendment are not confined to protection of citizens rather they apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction holding that the equal protection and due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments do not provide a sufficient basis for jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of money by the government holding that claims based on the fifth amendments due process and equal protection clauses do not give rise to jurisdiction under the tucker act holding that neither the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment nor article i  2 of the constitution guarantee against errors in the administration of an election