(I have no real expertise on this; I'm just relaying my understanding.) Textualism involves interpreting words with the same meaning that they would have had a

(I have no real expertise on this; I'm just relaying my understanding.) Textualism involves interpreting words with the same meaning that they would have had at the time whey were written. Originalism involves interpreting words in the same way they would have been intended at the time when they were written. To express the crux of the difference, I've seen multiple sources use the example of "cruel and unusual punishment". Textualism would look at the words: what did "cruel" and "unusual" mean in the 1790? Do those definitions describe a particular punishment? Originalism would instead consider intent: would a particular punishment have been considered to be "cruel and unusual" in 1790? Beyond the obvious, what they have in common is what they don't consider: purpose, history, or present meaning. For fun: Purposivism would consider the purpose of the clause: is a punishment the sort of thing the clause was written to protect against? Doctrinalism would look at the way the clause has been interpreted by the court in the past: how does the punishment under consideration compare to punishments previously considered cruel and unusual? Structuralism would examine the clause and its relationship to the rest of the document in which it was written: perhaps the fact that the clause follows "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed ..." offers guidance. Judicial pragmatism would consider the context, apply inductive reasoning, and consider the future implications of a ruling. (I don't think I've summarized this one well https://www.iep.utm.edu/leglprag/#H2 https://www.iep.utm.edu/leglprag/#H2 may be useful.)