With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". met the blood quantum requirement for naturalization could own land. See Dudley O. McGovney, The Anti-Japanese Land Laws of California and Ten Other States, 35 Calif. L.Rev. 7, 7-9 (1947). And during World War II, the government took into account the quantum of a citizen’s Japanese blood in determining who would be held in internment camps. See J.L. DeWitt, Final Report: Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 194.2, at 145 (1943) (noting that “[m]ixed-blood (one-half Japanese or less) individuals,” among others, were eligible for exemption from evacuation). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed opposition to “[a]ncestral tracing of this sort” in laws that serve to enable race-based distinctions. Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 510, 517, 524, 120 S.Ct. 1044, 145 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Because we have no need to use this metric,

A: holding that a statute is unconstitutional if it clearly contravenes a constitutional provision
B: holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum
C: holding unconstitutional a hawaiian constitutional provision that limited voting by statute to any descendant of not less than onehalf part of the races inhabiting the hawaiian islands previous to 1778
D: holding that the flsa does not prohibit changes in wage rates it prohibits the payment of overtime at less than one and onehalf times the regular wage rate
C.