With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supreme Court unanimously outlined the following framework for the initial evaluation of a claim brought under the Contract Clause: Generally, we first ask whether the change in state law has “operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.” Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244, 98 S.Ct. 2716, 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978); Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983). This inquiry has three components: whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial. Id. at 186, 112 S.Ct. 1105; accord Reliable Tractor, Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 376 Fed.Appx. 938, 941 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Federal law ultimately controls the analysis

A: recognizing three components of contract clause analysis set out in romein
B: recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis
C: holding for purposes of contract clause analysis a statute can be said to impair a contract when it alters the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties
D: holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis
A.