Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on appeal is to decide the case -within the framework of the issues raised by the parties.”). “[I]n the absence of the most cogent circumstances, we do not create issues....” Id. at 78 n. 4 (collecting cases). True, we have previously recognized that we will address issues that are “incident to” a determination of other issues properly presented. See Messina v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 341 N.W.2d 52, 58, 61 (Iowa 1983) (addressing issue of whether plaintiff had contractually waived his First Amendment rights when defendant had not raised that issue before the district court and holding “the waiver issue may be determined as an incident to the expressed issue”); Presbytery of Se. Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 282, 234 (Iowa 1975); see also State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 382-83 (Iowa 2014) . However, this exception to our error
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals
B. holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal
C. holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge
D. holding constitutional challenge to section 93991 raised for the first time on appeal was barred
E. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.