Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216-17, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983); Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed.Cir.1994) (en banc); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 885 (Fed.Cir.1983) (en banc). We think that the Court of Federal Claims misconstrued the scope of its jurisdiction. The Presentment Clause of the Constitution states that before becoming law, a legislative act must be approved by both houses of Congress and must be presented to the President of the United States for approval. See U.S. Const, art. I, § 7, cl. 2. We agree that this constitutional provision neither explicitly nor implicitly obligates the federal Government to pay damages, and accordingly is not by itself actionable in the Court of Federal Claims. Cf. Connolly, 716 F.2d at 887 (<HOLDING>); Carruth v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 422, 627
holding that arrest made with probable cause and without excessive force does not give rise to iied claim holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that possessing property of another for the purpose of security on a debt does not give rise to probable cause to arrest