There is no discernable difference between constitutional originalism and conservative evangelical approaches to biblical interpretation. The only real question is which came first.

Both presume an origin stories that are harmonious and unanimous...resulting in clearly written texts free of contradiction.

Both presume the original authors thought their words were eternal truths that should never be challenged or modified.

Both refuse to acknowledge change over time or that the meaning of words are rooted in specific historical contexts. Thus the translation of specific statements to "principles" becomes muddled and arbitrary.

Both are fundamentally ahistorical. They assume that the original authors hold the same framing assumptions that they hold as modern conservatives.

There are others, but the bottom line is that this shared textual approach that many presume is severely constraining is, in fact, immensely flexible and extendable even as it maintains a patina of traditionalism.

At this point, @uncpressblog would probably appreciate me mentioning my own ancient text...for anyone interested in learning more about evangelical approaches to biblical interpretation and how it fits into our present capitalist moment. https://uncpress.org/book/9781469633435/guaranteed-pure/