That is the whole problem with asserting the Constitution to mean only what the Framers understood it to mean: Even if we grant that, the precise meaning of many clauses is intensely and widely debated. Scalia can say, "When you read Chaucer, you try to figure out what the words meant when they were put down on paper. It’s the same thing with the law,” but "figuring out what the words meant when they were put down on paper" is a judgement call that varies with the individuals making it, their culture and their era. Scalias implication his far right view of the text is indisputable, or indelibly and unambiguously written in stone OR parchment, is absurd.

Of course, it is not even THAT simple; a literally limited First Amendment would not protect your right to gush about Scalia online (since that is an electronic transmission, not speech or publishing,) and a literally unlimited Second Amendment WOULD ensure my absolute right to keep and bear ICBMs.

“They want society to do things their way now and forever, coast to coast.” That is his Scalias argument FOR letting him define the Constitutions every penstroke in excruciating detail, now and forever; sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. He quickly gives a good example of why that would be so foolishly dangerous: “My constitution is a very flexible one. There’s nothing in it about abortion and since there isn’t, it’s up to the citizens.” Scalias Constitution grants women no Fourth Amendment right to security against the search needed to prove an illegal abortion, nor a Fifth Amendment right against thereby incriminating themselves.

That is not so shocking though; Scalias stated "understanding" of the Constitution is that "With the right structure, you will preserve freedom even without a bill of rights." The Constitutions authors disagreed: THAT IS WHY THEY ADDED THE BILL OF RIGHTS! That, and the fact the states all refused to ratify it until they did.

The Constitution is obviously not a blank check. It has specific words with specific meanings, but if all the latter were as unambigously cut and dried as Scalia makes it sound he would be out of a job. That they are not makes me WISH he were. Scalia is arguably the most activist justice on the SCOTUS; it is only debatable because, although Kagans tenure has just begun, she will likely be every bit as bad (just in the other direction.) Partisan activism does not become impartial jurisprudence nor sage wisdom just because one happens to share the activists partisanship. I wish Scalia no ill will, but only hope he soon retires and lets a more able justice take his place. His infamous skill at inverting the meaning of words is more visibly failing each day. He has become a caricature of his once intimidating self.