Scalia says past court decisions give "some plausible support " for the inclusion of the words 'under god' in the Pledge of Allegiance. How can he make such an argument if he's a strict constructionist? Answer: He can't. Once you accept the notion of 'plausibility' you accept an ambiguity that strict constructionism does not allow; you accept doubt. For Scalia to say, as he has, that "the Constitution, as I interpret it, is dead" is an act of logical and rhetorical self-immolation. I've commented on that before. This time it isn't so tidy, but it's the same thing.