Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or bigamy, shall be deemed infamous, and shall forever thereafter be rendered incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, of voting at any election, of serving as a juror, and of giving testimony in this Territory. The Statute Laws of the Territory of Iowa, Code of Criminal Jurisprudence, Tenth Div., § 109, at 182 (1839). The 1839 statute provides us with a limited window into some specific understanding of the meaning of “infamous crimefs]” of the day. Of course, like Iowa Code section 39.3(8) (2013) today, this statute is not a constitutional test. See Snyder, 958 N.E.2d at 780 (concluding an 1843 Indiana statute enumerating nine infamous crimes was not a present-day constitutional test); see also Green v. City of Cascade, 231 N.W.2d 882, 890 (Iowa 1975) . Moreover, the judgment captured by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that while we give respectful consideration to the legislatures understanding of constitutional language we are the final arbiter of the meaning of the iowa constitution
B. holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language
C. holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning
D. holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent
E. recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.