With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". employment. Section 7311 explicitly provides that “[a]n individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States ... if he ... participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States.” This language unambiguously provides an absolute bar on employment without any temporal limitation. As the Federal Circuit held, “[t]he conclusion is inescapable that Congress meant exactly what it said [in § 7311] — that persons who participated in a strike against the government are barred indefinitely from employment in the government.” Wagner v. Office of Personnel Management, 783 F.2d 1042, 1046 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 3276, 91 L.Ed.2d 566 (1986); Dehainaut v. Pena, 32 F.3d 1066, 1074 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1427, 131

A: holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation
B: holding that  7311 written without condition or limitation contemplates an indefinite ban
C: holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis
D: holding a warrantless probation search condition that is reasonably related to a probationers rehabilitation is a valid limitation to a defendants fourth amendment rights
B.