Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
common law of arbitration would apply to disputes arising between them. The arbitration provision at issue in this case is an “all issues” arbitration provision of the type disfavored by the Georgia common law of arbitration. See, e.g., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Wilbanks, 162 Ga.App. 154, 290 S.E.2d 122 (1982). Such a clause would be enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act but not under Georgia common law. Id. At the time Booth and Hume executed their employment agreement, the Georgia courts took the position that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted the state’s substantive arbitration law, at least where state law would render the arbitration agreement void. See, e.g., West Point-Pepperell v. Multi-line Indus., 231 Ga. 329, 330-31, 201 S.E.2d 452, 453-54 (1973) . Therefore, when Hume and Booth agreed that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that wjhere such a transaction involves commerce within the meaning of the federal arbitration statute the state law and policy with respect thereto must yield to the paramount federal law
B. holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law
C. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court
E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.