With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or unjust. City of Las Cruces v. Garcia, 102 N.M. 25, 26-27, 690 P.2d 1019, 1020-21 (1984). In considering a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded facts are taken as established. Saenz v. Morris, 106 N.M. 530, 531, 746 P.2d 159, 160 (Ct.App.1987). Initially, we note that Plaintiffs rely in part on Article II, Section 17. That section guarantees the individual’s right to “freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects” and provides that truth is a defense in libel actions. Plaintiffs cite no authority, and we are not aware of any, holding that Article II, Section 17, of the New Mexico Constitution was intended to guarantee “rights of association.” Cf. U.S. Const, amend. 1 (freedom of assembly guaranteed); Futrell v. Ahrens, 88 N.M. 284, 286, 540 P.2d 214, 216 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution

A: holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
B: holding that custodial parent has constitutional right to determine with whom children associate
C: holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences
D: recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another
D.