Well, the line comes from deciding what the First Amendment interest is, and if this Court heed the First Amendment interest off of this difference between selecting who gets the benefit of 20 years of extension and just simply legislating in a general way prospectively, then this Court could hold, with respect to the prospective, that it's not even necessary to raise the intermediate scrutiny in that context, but again, for Ashwander reasons we don't think that this Court should address the prospective aspect of the CTEA even under the First Amendment.
This case involves the Declaration of Independence 
This case involves the Constitution and Bill of Rights not the Declaration of Independence. 
( z0 involve :ARG1 ( z1 publication :name ( z2 name :op "Declaration" :op "of" :op "Independence" ) ) :ARG2 ( z3 case :mod ( z4 this ) ) )
(z0 / involve-01
    :ARG1 (z1 / publication
              :name (z2 / name
                        :op1 "Declaration"
                        :op2 "of"
                        :op3 "Independence"))
    :ARG2 (z3 / case-03
              :mod (z4 / this)))
This case involves the Declaration of Independence
z3 :mod z4
z0 :ARG2 z3
z0 :ARG1 z1
z1 :name z2
z2 :op1 0
z2 :op2 2
z2 :op3 1