In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: under Section 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution. The majority’s greatest foible, however, is in its treatment of the primary issue before this Court, whether the enactment of Senate Bill 1, by which the Legislature removed the PSC Commissioners, constituted an encroachment by the Legislature on the gubernatorial powers enumerated in Sections 1, 9 and 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution, and a violation of Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights’ separation of powers. Aristotle’s principles, explored by John Locke, and later pragmatically structured by Baron de Montesquieu, are generally credited as the mainstay of the separation of powers doctrine. Edward Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse, 103 Mich. L.Rev.2073, 2093 n. 59 (2005) (<HOLDING>)-, Jim Rossi, Dual Constitutions and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government (B) recognizing that the american governments three distinct branches originate from a fusion of concepts found in aristotles the politics john lockes the second treatise of government and montesquieus the spirit of laws (C) recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law (D) recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties the judiciary must act (E) recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government

A: holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government
****
Q: States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). By assenting to settlement in this action, Defendants waived, for example, the right to contest the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction, which would have been an element of the EPA’s substantive claim. See United States v. Krilich, 209 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir.2000) (“[T]he interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were ‘waters of the United States,’ is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 992, 121 S.Ct. 482, 148 L.Ed.2d 455 (2000); see also United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251, 264 (4th Cir.1997) (indicating proof of interstate nexus is an element of criminal liability under CWA); United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386, 391 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a consent decree “is an agreement 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional (B) recognizing the existence of the special relationship (C) recognizing existence of two tests (D) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (E) holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive

A: recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional
****
Q: a hearing before the Industrial Commissioner on his application for alternate medical care and not for the legal process’s (i.e., the answer’s) intended use; (3) ITT’s use of the legal process for the improper purpose was a proximate cause of Gibson’s damage; and (4) the amount of damage. ITT challenges various aspects of the abuse-of-process claim. For example, it argues that (1) the answer was not filed (or not withdrawn) in order to refuse to pay for psychiatric care, (2) this action was not unreasonable, and (3) Gibson cannot show damage from ITT’s failure to pay the psychiatric bills. Because ITT has not appealed from the judgment in favor of Gibson on this claim, it cannot now challenge the judgment. See Johnson Equip. Corp. v. Indus. Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13, 17 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>). We reject ITT’s contention that it was a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it (B) holding that a party need not crossappeal a trial courts rejection of a ground urged in the trial court to preserve error on a claim decided in the partys favor but must still crossappeal to preserve an issue on a claim decided adversely to the party (C) holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal (D) holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed (E) holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial

A:
holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it
****