NOTE: The following is a surface-level discussion. I'm well aware that many variants exist. Feel free to complain in the comments and we'll discuss your specific view at that point.
I am not a deconstructionist. I believe that words have meanings that can be conveyed from the writer to the reader. While the message is subject to a degree of distortion by our individual experiences, cultures and beliefs, the essential intent may be communicated successfully, even though clarification may be needed at times and the reader's response may not always reflect authorial intent.
Although there are variants of deconstruction and its cousins in literary criticism, I believe that the overall concept is self-defeating. If there's a lack of author-embedded intrinsic meaning in the text, and readers merely construct their own virtual texts, there's really no point to writing books about deconstruction. After all, if deconstruction is a valid theory, you can't use words to make an airtight case for deconstruction. The readers might come to the opposite conclusion, and their views would have to be construed as valid.
Derrida claimed that justice could not be deconstructed, but I fail to see how he can demand that justice be spared (along with his writings) while everything else must be deconstructed. He was inconsistent because no one can really be a consistent deconstructionist.
If you claim to be a deconstructionist, share your views and I'll happily deconstruct your protests as being glowing endorsements of my view.