User blog comment:Semanticdrifter/Digital Protest Against the FISA Improvements Act/@comment-76.181.237.10-20140205151039/@comment-20644-20140205165540

To clarify, what Justice Scalia was saying was that (in his judicial opinion) the constitution is not a living document. There are two big schools of thought when it comes to reading the constitution. One school of thought is that it's a living document, and that the meaning of it can be re-interpreted and applied based on modern contexts. Another school of thought, which Justice Scalia belongs to, says that the constitution is not open to interpretation and that it must be applied based on the intention of the country's founders and the original meaning of the text. So he used the term "dead" as a counter to "living document," to say that its original meaning can't be changed.

So he wasn't saying that there's no Bill of Rights anymore, or that the constitution is or should be ignored. Quite the opposite, in fact. He was simply professing his belief about how the constitution should be read.