Originalism is a method for interpreting law by enforcing what the text meant to the people who originally wrote it.
Following originalism rights are adjusted to the current values of people by passing laws, which seems to be reasonable in practice. However from what I've read of it the Constitution is very broad. It rarely dives into specifics but rather gives a high level statement, seemingly to be carried out by legislation and the judicial process.
For example "cruel and unusual" in the 8th amendment. Justice Anthony Scalia, one of the biggest proponents of originalism, stated that the death penalty wasn't included under it because it was legal at the time the text was written. Under originalism modern society needs to amend the Constitution if it wants to include the death penalty or anything else under "cruel and unusual".
Do proponents of originalism suggest the new amendment use the phrase "cruel and unusual" but with the understanding that those words now mean something different? Or that it specifically call out the death penalty and everything else?
I wonder because the former would be strange and possibly confusing, and the latter greatly restricts amendments by not allowing them to paint with a broad stroke as the original text did.