But you -- under your intermediate scrutiny test we would not be hypothesizing what might have been in Congress's mind. Your First Amendment test is a stringent one. You have to have an important purpose, and the means that you use is necessarily tied to that purpose. If you take that position, I don't see how you make the retroactive-prospective line work.
The retroactive-prospective line will not work.
 The writer claims, "If you take that position, I don't see how you make the retroactive-prospective line work." But that doesn't mean it can't work or won't work. The model took the writer's opinion as fact.
( z0 work :ARG1 ( z1 line :mod ( z2 prospective ) :mod ( z3 retroactive ) ) :polarity - )
(z0 / work-09
    :ARG1 (z1 / line
              :mod (z2 / prospective)
              :mod (z3 / retroactive))
    :polarity -)
The retroactive - prospective line will not work .
z1 :mod z2
z1 :mod z3
z0 :polarity 0
z0 :ARG1 z1