Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: Justice Breyer, under our theory as we've advanced it, you're right; the 1976 act would be unconstitutional. Whether this Court would apply such a holding in this case to that act is a question that would have to be resolved under the retrospective --
Justice Breyer agrees that he 1976 act would be unconstitutional.
The '76 act has been in play for several years. 
Could we then go back to the lovely Justice O'Connor's question?
The act in discussion is from a date that ends in 76
Could we then go back to the wise Justice O'Connor's question?
If there was judicial review, the courts would apply a standard. 
People consider the 1988 Act archaic.
I think there are many precedents to this situation
The First Amendment argument about retrospective extension is the strongest argument in politics 
The court in question was concerned with deciding if the Third Amendment applied to the CTEA.
Mr. Lessig, on your First Amendment argument I saw where the retroactivity-prospectivity came in,
The agent disagrees that the '76 act impeded progress. 
Most people believe that the retrospective extension is the strongest First Amendment argument
The provisions and operation of this Act will be reviewed and subjected to scrutiny.
The court's can sometimes take on other matters that don't apply to this.
The retroactive-prospective line will not work.
The case brought in the 200's apply to the previous cases
The Supreme Court has seen cases like Helvering v. Horst
The 76 act was actually passed in 75
Progress in science has been impeded by the '76 act is what the argument implies. 
This is a case being heard by SCOTUS. 
the injunction was taken back
This court case will be deemed unconstitutional
Justice Breyer will be ok with the ruling
1976 act is unconstitutional