With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Second District held that Public Act 89— 404 violated the single subject clause. See People v. Reedy, 295 Ill. App. 3d 34, 42 (1998). The court noted that, as enacted, Public Act 89 — 404 addressed no less than five distinct legislative subjects and amended nine different statutory codes covering both criminal and civil matters, and the court was unable to identify the natural and logical connection uniting the amendments. Reedy, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 42. However, the court emphasized that its ruling did not address the substantive constitutionality of the public act’s individual components and that the legislature was free to revisit the public act’s various provisions in future legislation. Reedy, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 44; see also People v. Pitts, 295 Ill. App. 3d 182, 190 (1998) (<HOLDING>); People v. Wilson, 295 Ill. App. 3d 228, 240

A: holding that public act 89  404 violates the single subject clause
B: holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
C: holding that rluipa violates establishment clause
D: holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause
A.