Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. Usery v. Turner Elkhom Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2892, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). See also, Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993) (upholding withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) against a substantive due process challenge); Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 106 S.Ct. 1018, 89 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) ; Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A Gray,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception do not violate the confrontation clause
B. holding that the withdrawal liability provisions of the mppaa do not violate the taking clause
C. holding the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under 18 pacsa  7508 do not violate the equal protection clause
D. holding that the mandatory life sentence provisions of 21 usc  841b1 do not violate the eighth amendment
E. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.