Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
denial of reh'g by 119 Nev. 460, 76 P.3d 22 (2003), cert. denied sub nom., Angle v. Guinn, 541 U.S. 957, 124 S.Ct. 1662, 158 L.Ed.2d 392 (2004)). 13 . See Wash. Rev.Code § 43.135.035. 14 . See FHR. Res. 6, 104th Cong. (1995), 141 Cone. Rec. 462, 463 (1995) (adding subsections (c) and (d) to House Rule XXI(5)). 15 . Skaggs v. Carle, 110 F.3d 831, 833 (D.C.Cir.1997). 16 . Id. at 837. 17 . 141 Cone. Rec. 29463, 29476-77 (1995) (Speaker Pro Tempore rules that waiving super-majority rule only requires a majority). 18 . Skaggs, 110 F.3d at $47 (Edwards, C.J., dissenting) (expressing view that House Rule XXXI(5)(c) violated the presentment clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2). 19 . See, eg., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 538-39, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) ; Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wash.2d 188, 949
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that specific wording of constitutional qualifications clause invalidated resigntorun statute
B. holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment
C. holding that the remedies are exclusive
D. holding that section 1220 provides an exclusive remedy for tort like actions against an insurer
E. recognizing that the us constitutions qualifications clause provides an exclusive list of qualifications for legislators notwithstanding its negative phrasing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.