Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: Now, we offer a simple way to make this clear, express limit make sense, and that is precisely the understanding we suggest that existed in 1790. The only precedents that existed in 1790 were precedents of setting a term, and then when parliament was asked in 1735, '37, and '39 to extend it, they rejected it, and as amicus historians said, they rejected it because, as a pamphleteer described it, that would be effectively a perpetual term.
setting a term existed before 1800
The author is explaining how the Government has a constitutional right to extend terms.
the States' s interpretation of "limited times" could eviscerate that term of any meaning.
The way the court interpreted "limited times" makes it without clear meaning.
parliament rejected more than twice
The author feels that the term assures that a limit is respected.
The way this specific court interprets "limited times" makes it without clear meaning.
The way the court interpreted "limited times" makes it meaningless.
The petitioners are asking for a lengthy constitutional limitation.
Congress extended the term within the past 20 years.
The author is talking about how the constitution has a clause that gives the government the power to extend terms. 
people in 1790 had to give up rights
The way this specific court interprets "limited times" could possibly but not certainly make it without clear meaning
Congress extended the term in 1977.
The court should interpret "limited times" directly and with clarity.
Congress extended the term less than 5 years ago.
Congress may or may not have extended the term so often through the years
he words of section 93 are rooted in Treaties written in the 19th century.
Congress can only decide to make changes three times with their treaty partners before it becomes permanent.
We have 125 years of history of this Court in making sure that the limits, both express and implied
Retrospective extensions have eviscerated the meaning of limited times. 
The terms of Federal copyright  were not extended in 1830
they wanted to make things confusing. 
they want to complicate things. 
They are talking about the 20th century. 