With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because the case presented a justiciable controversy, we reached the merits and declared as unlawful legislative appointments beyond the term prescribed by law. Hardee illustrates the fundamental distinction between a legal question and a political question. In the separation of powers context, the JMSC has acted in its political capacity. As a result, there has been no showing of an article I, § 8 separation of powers violation concerning the JMSC. This returns us to Respondents’ claim that Petitioner’s complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question. “The nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.” S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Judicial Merit Selection Comm’n, 369 S.C. 139, 142, 632 S.E.2d 277, 278 (2006) ( 2d 241 (2001) (<HOLDING>). “In the instance of nonjusticiability,

A: holding state constitution provides senate with authority to judge election returns and qualifications of its members
B: holding that the colorado constitution reserves no authority in the state legislature to change add to or diminish the qualifications for constitutionally created offices
C: holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution
D: holding that the constitutional qualifications for the office of sheriff were exclusive and the general assembly had no authority to impose additional qualifications as a prerequisite to holding the office of county sheriff
A.