Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
While we agree with the statement-in Brown that “[s]ometimes it is necessary for ... the summary statement to provide a context reference” for the initiative petition, we do not find that failure to do so, where the consequences are potentially ever changing due to the political landscape, will always render the summary insufficient. See Brown, 370 S.W.3d at 654. We find that the effect that the Initiative Petitions may eventually have on the provisions of SB19 does not require the court to step in and redraft the summaries in order for them to be fair and sufficient. It is commonly understood that constitutional amendments will supersede statutes that are in contravention with the amended constitutional provision. Labrayere v. Bohr Farms, LLC, 458 S.W.3d 319, 327 (Mo. banc 2015) ; State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding equivalent automatic license revocation provision of colorado real estate statute unconstitutional
B. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them
C. holding that it is not
D. holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional
E. holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.