Could we then go back to Justice O'Connor's question? To make that very specific, if we agree with you, does that mean that we would, in principle, have to hold the 1976 extension unconstitutional? I mean, in 1976, Congress extended the term from 28 years renewable once, to life of the author plus 50 years. Now they're extending it life of the author plus 70. If the latter is unconstitutional on your theory, how could the former not be? And if the former is, the chaos that would ensue would be horrendous.
Congress extended the term in 1977.
A: No

Mr. Speaker, we are not carrying out a nuclear program with India and Pakistan, but with respect to nuclear reactors that were supplied before the program ended in 1976, we are in the light of the views of the International Atomic Energy Association helping provide information to make sure that these reactors are maintained safely in the interests of civilian populations.
A nuclear program with India and Pakistan is not being undertaken.
A: Yes

Hot<br>It was so hot outside this morning. My dog came in panting very hard. She was so exhausted she had to lie down. She drank an entire bowl of water. Then she asked for some food.
The dog ate more than one bowl
A:
It's impossible to say