Why wouldn't it? If the equity argument under the Necessary and Proper Clause justifies extension of the copyright for those whose copyright will expire tomorrow if it's not extended, in order to put them on parity with those getting copyrights for new works, why doesn't it apply to the copyright, the holder of the copyright that expired yesterday?
Does this next sentence follow, given the preceding text?
This person is talking to another person

OPTIONS:
 *Yes;
 *It's impossible to say;
 *No;
It's impossible to say