Er, no. While that's the marketing spiel for textualism (the words in a legal enactment, including the Constitution, mean what the words mean in their ordinary meaning), its very much not for originalism, which focuses not on the meaning of the bare words, but of the meaning-in-original-context of the words (including looking to things like legislative intent.) While textualism and originalism are often held by thinkers of similar political backgrounds (both approaches are frequently associated with the political right) and people purporting to follow them often come to very similar conclusions, they are quite different philosophies.

> If the words proscribe certain things then so be it, but otherwise, democracy controls.

Neither originalists nor textualists tend to think that the Constitution is a document under which everything which is not prohibited is allowed; quite the opposite, in fact.