From a paper [SSRN] linked at Balkinization

Living constitutionalism is largely dead. So, too, is old-style originalism. Instead, there is increasing convergence in the legal academy around what might be called “new textualism.” The core principle of new textualism is that constitutional interpretation must start with a determination, based on evidence from the text, structure, and enactment history, of what the language in the Constitution actually means.

This ties into the new themes in philosophy. The focus on the "actual" meaning of the Constitution is akin to the focus on "objects" and is founded on the same error: that what we perceive is identical to what exists beyond our perceptions.

"...what the language in the Constitution actually means." I really thought we were beyond this shit.