Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the United States Supreme Court has also recognized that “the constitutionality of a vague statutory standard is closely related to whether that standard incorporates a requirement of mens rea.” Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 675, 685 n. 13, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979). While “the requirement that the act must be willful or purposeful may not render certain, for all purposes, a statutory definition of the crime which is in some respects uncertain ... it does relieve the statute of the objection that it punishes without warning an offense of which the accused was unaware.” Id. (quoting Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-02, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 1035-36, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1995), (plurality opinion)). See, e.g., Village of Hoffman Estates, at 499, 102 S.Ct. at 1193-94 ; Robinson v. State, 600 A.2d 356, 365 (1991).
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that statutes requiring intent are not likely to be invalidated because of vagueness
B. holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness
C. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws
D. recognizing that laws and regulations may bear upon the existence of a constitutional interest
E. recognizing that a scienter requirement may mitigate a laws vagueness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.