Here is a draft of a paper on legal
interpretation that is similar to origanilism in emphasizing the
meaning of the text as enacted, but differs from standard forms of
originalism, especially with respect to normative words and phrases
in the text and in disavowing as determinative drafter and
legislative or ratifier expectation and intent. The first section by
itself might be of interest if you are a little uncertain about the
difference between ambiguity and vagueness, or types of ambiguity, or
what problems of interpretation there are beyond ambiguity and
vagueness.