Justice Breyer, under our theory as we've advanced it, you're right; the 1976 act would be unconstitutional. Whether this Court would apply such a holding in this case to that act is a question that would have to be resolved under the retrospective --
Not only Justice Breyer thinks the 1976 act would be unconstitutional.
Justice Breyer agrees with the person they are speaking too in the text about the act. I think the system has a hard time telling Justice is speaking to someone. 
( z1 think :ARG0 ( z2 person :name ( z3 name :op "Breyer" ) :ARG0-of ( z4 have-org-role :ARG2 ( z5 justice ) ) :mod ( z6 only :polarity - ) ) :ARG1 ( z7 constitutional :polarity - :domain ( z8 act :time ( z9 date-entity :year 1976 ) ) ) )