These are the words Scalia uses in his concurring opinion....look at them...see the reference to "textual limitations"....you don't hear the "Living Constitution" justices (the Libs) talking like that. Scalia and Thomas ALWAYS talk like this in their court opinions....they hold to the original text as best as humanly possible....that is the VERY HIGH calling of a federal judge (especially on the SCOTUS). The only way our Constitution works as an "anchor" and "limiter" of government power is when we do our best to be faithful to its original meaning and intent. This is called "Constitutional Originalism" or "textualism". The alternate philosophy is what is known as the "Living Constitution"...that is where you make it mean whatever you want it to mean. One can easily see the danger and fallacy of that philosophy. There is no limit to what you can do with the text. The "Living Constitution" is how we have arrived at where we are today....the documents text has been stretched, pulled, contorted, twisted, and perverted for so long....that major portions of the limiting powers have been made to mean something entirely different than originally intended. Another reminder of the absolute failure of Senator Graham on SCOTUS confirmations. He never talks about this requirement for a SCOTUS justice.
A bigger reminder that we need clear amending language to reset the decades long perversion of textual meaning of key limiting powers. The founders understood this tendency among men....to stretch and pull on the limits of power....and they gave us a specific process to deal with it in Article V of the Constitution. The states can do what the Congress will not do....and propose amendments to the United States Constitution in order to reset the modern perverted interpretation back towards the founders intent.