To the Journal editor: How should we the people interpret our Constitution and any object or process in the sciences, the social sciences and the humanities? There are three alternative interpretive theories that could be used: authorial theories, readerly theories and textual theories. Authorial theories emphasize the original intent of the author, such as those who approved our Constitution. A main limitation of these theories is we accept progress as a realistic and valued part of our life. For example, the original authors of our Constitution did not give rights to slaves, women, and species, but today we progressed to give rights to all these groups. Readerly theories emphasize the personal prejudices of the reader, such as a citizen or a judge. A main limitation of these theories is both other theories reject the assumption that prejudices of self are an adequate guide to interpreting public policy.