conclusion is that the source as alleged and pleaded is not money-mandating, the court shall so declare, and shall dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction[.]” (emphasis added)). The Complaint, however, does not allege any requisite legislative act to invoke the Bill of Attainder Clause. Therefore, in this case, the court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Bill of Attainder Clause claim, iii. The Fourth Amendment, The Due Process Clause Of The Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, And Tenth Amendment To The United States Constitution Are Not Money-Mandating. As a matter of law, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment are not money-mandating. See LaChance v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 127, 130 (1988) (<HOLDING>) (citing Shaw v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 796,
holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states