seeks redress in the Court of Federal Claims must present a claim for “actual, presently due money damages from the United States.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 3, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969); see also United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114. (1976). Although the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction for damage suits against the United States Government, it is equally clear that the Tucker Act. does not itself create a cause of action against the Government. Rather, a plaintiff seeking recovery against the Government in the Court of Federal Claims must point to a money-mandating constitutional provision, statute, regulation, or contract with the United States affording it a right to money damages. See United States .2d 1068, 1081 (Ct.Cl.1980) (<HOLDING>); Walton v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 755, 757
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 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 claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits holding that claims based on the fifth amendments due process and equal protection clauses do not give rise to jurisdiction under the tucker act