Premise: I -- no, Justice Ginsburg, we would not, and the reason is again related to the method we have adopted to interpret "limited times." We have not said that "promote the progress of science" is a general and independent constraint on the Copyright Clause authority. We've said it must be looked to to interpret the scope of "limited times," and unless retrospective extensions are forbidden, it will eviscerate the meaning of "limited times." That does not occur in the context of the scope of exclusive right, nor in the context of the power to secure. If that's --
Hypothesis: Everything has to be interpreted through the scope of limited times or it won't occur in the context of limited times.