With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the interpretation that uphold’s the law’s constitutionality. Head v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 288 Minn. 496, 506, 182 N.W.2d 887, 893 (1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 886, 92 S.Ct. 196, 30 L.Ed.2d 168 (1971). This is true even if the unconstitutional interpretation is more natural. Id. Moreover, we must presume the legislature intended to enact a constitutional law. Id. at 506, 182 N.W.2d at 894. Minn. Const, art. 8, § 5 provides: The legislature of this state may provide for the removal of inferior officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties. Put another way, elected municipal officers, including city councilmembers, “may not be removed except for malfeasance or nonfea-sance in office.” Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255 Minn. 300, 304, 96 N.W.2d 569, 572-73 (1959) (<HOLDING>). Minn.Stat. § 471.705, subd. 2 can be

A: holding that to the extent the constitutional provision permitting cities to acquire parks without their corporate limits comprehends the right of acquisition by eminent domain see 1908 const art 8  22 the provision is not selfexecuting as it merely lays down a general principle 
B: holding that the state may not require districts to use local levy funds to make  ample provision s  for education because it is not a dependable and regular tax source quoting wash const art ix  1
C: holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law
D: holding removal of city councilman governed by minn const art 13  2 1857 identical predecessor to minn const art 8  5
D.