118, at 7, 388 S.W.3d 16, 21. Without such amendments, however, the appellate courts’ in? terpretation of the statute remains the law. Id., 388 S.W.3d at 21; see also Neal v. United States, 516 U.S. 284, 296, 116 S.Ct. 763, 133 L.Ed.2d 709 (1996) (“Congress, not this Court has the responsibility for revising its statutes. Were we to alter our statutory' interpretations from " cases to case. Congress would have less reason to exercise its responsibility to correct. statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair.”); Francis v. S. Pac. Co., 333 U,S. 445, 450, 68 S.Ct. 611, 92 L.Ed. 798 (1948) (stating that the longstanding interpretation of the statute itself becomes “part of the warp and woof’ of the legislation); E. C. Barton & Co. v. Neal, 263 Ark. 40, 43, 562 S.W.2d 294, 295 (1978) (<HOLDING>). |1BUnder the separation-of-powers doctrine,
holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself holding that this court may independently review the administrative construction of a statute recognizing this as the general rule recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court