In general, every legal rule needs to be interpreted at the point of implementation, and this is the fact that these rules have different interpretations due to reasons such as brevity and ambiguity. The constitution is not excluded from this general principle, but due to its generality, generality and relative difficulty of its revision and revision, in some cases it is more susceptible to interpretations than other laws. It is clear that every authority to implement the law inevitably interprets it, and in this case, an interpretation may be provided from the same text as many interpreters. Therefore, in case of disagreement between the parties to the law, it should be possible to refer to an official interpretation such as the interpretation of the chapter on speech. The interpreter, in the position of interpreting the law and explaining the legislator's ruling, may consider himself bound by the words and text of the law and has no mission other than to discover the will of the legislator. And justice is important, and as a result, instead of obeying the laws, take a creative or creationist interpretation. It is clear that the position of the law in the eyes of the commentator and the role and mission of the commentator, on the other hand, can suggest very different approaches.