The degree that separates a constitutional state vs. inconstitutional ones is the firm definition of its legal state – a source of truth in the system, and not an amorphous interpretation existing in heads of demented supreme court justices.
The first one is USA, whose judiciary gladly swallowed the executive order 6102, and the entirety of nonsense surrounding domestic surveillance programs. One whose supreme court said that a man has "in fact gained" wealth from surrendering his gold for less than half of its price, and managed to validate FISA courts whose very existence goes prima fascie against the word of 10+ constitutional statutes.
The second, the best example I know of is Pakistan, and to some extend India. British legal process, as well as German empire's one was textualist for quite long time. A very famous case of late British empire law, if not the most known one was when a man sentenced to hanging was pulled out of the noose in the very last moment, when a lawyer argued that "a sentence of hanging, gives no permission for murder." Even today, a supreme justice of Pakistan, a man known for the thunderous legal activism, is bound by hands and legs by the word of constitution, and hits the stone wall of SJC's opposition when his actions diverge even by a single letter from his formal legal mandate.
I cannot speak about Pakistan, but I will comment on India.
India has a concept of the "basic structure" of the constitution[1], and that no constitutional amendment may violate the fundamental rights that the constitution's "basic structure" grants. Now, it should be clear that politically this has been overturned a few times by different leaders, but conceptually the Indian constitution is very much interpretive -- and in fact the "basic structure" doctrine is a Supreme Court decision.
So India most definitely does not fit the mould you describe. I couldn't find any information about literalism in Pakistan's constitution, so I really cannot comment on that.
> when a lawyer argued that "a sentence of hanging, gives no permission for murder."
This is not an example of interpretation -- in fact it's actually a wilful ignorance of the law. The sentence in British law has been (since its inception), "to be hung by the neck until dead". In any case, I have serious doubts that such a story is true (it's also clearly embellished).
> The first one is USA [...]
I disagree with domestic surveillance as well as many of things you mentioned, but you haven't given an example of how these things were allowed under constitutional interpretation. There in fact is a lot of evidence that shows that PRISM violated the constitutional rights of US citizens. I don't think there's any Supreme Court decisions about it though, so there isn't really a good argument in saying it's an interpretation problem if the constitution has never been interpreted for this particular case.
