Did you actually read the constitution end to end? It's not that big, and if you had you would have see that such things you propose aren't in line with the text
A textualist reading of the First Amendment doesn't permit banning human sacrifice in religious ceremonies.
A textualist reading of the Second Amendment doesn't permit banning of personally owned nuclear arms.
Textualists don't seem too interested in overruling the relevant unconstitutional laws in these cases.
(Yes, I've read it. It's vague - deliberately, I'd argue - in spots, like in defining "general welfare", and some folks like to pretend things like the Ninth Amendment don't exist at all.)
