Not the OP, but of those two, I certainly agree textualism is more "honest". I don't see how you could ever divine a singular true intent behind a compromise of hundreds of divergent minds.
"Textualism" requires divining a single true meaning as interpreted by some not-well-specified group contemporary to the writing, instead of doing so for the at least somewhat-well-specified group of people adopting the measure required for "intentionalism".
(I think both forms of originalism are useful and important interpretive lenses, but I think taking either as universally decisive or even mistaking either for a decidable objective standard is deeply problematic.)
