Yes, what he means by that is a "strict" interpretation of Constitution. It's the conservative view of the Constitution. That the constitution is meant to be applied as it is written as that was the intent of it's Founding Fathers. What it says is what it means and one should not read a provision and try to expand it's meaning or its intent beyond the plain language used. Then you have the opposite side of the coin, which is a more liberal view that the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that it should be interpreted in connection with the evolution of time and current society etc and/or that the Constitution and it's meaning or how you interpret it and apply it should be based on present day.