Whether the constitutional principles of due process, legislative intent, and statutory construction govern judicial interpretation of legislative amendments and statutes

OF LAW PRESENTED (1) Isn’t it true and/or fact, the due process embodied in the Constitution is guaranteed to criminal defendants? (2) Isn’t it true and/or fact, no judge or other government official can war against the Constitution, in a way that is considered treason? (3) Isn’t it true and/or fact, the Constitution of a state is to be the authority of that State? (4) Isn’t it true and/or fact, Legislature ’s are the soul officials of creating law? (5) Isn’t it true and/or fact, intent of the Legislature is to be carried out in court decisions? (6) Isn’t it true and/or fact, when a Legislature creates a statute, an amendment to it does not change the ordinary meaning of intent, unless the Legislature construct law that clearly says the intent is changed? (7) Isn’t it true and/or fact, we look to the language, Legislative history, and the subject matter involved, as a rule of statutory construction (8) Isn’t it true and/or fact, the word amend means addition, alteration. But the hallmark of an amendment is that it follows the same process of adoption, as the original text, or statement. Are it follow specified by the authority according to which the original took its form? (9) Isn’t it true and/or fact, supersede does not mean the replacement of something or someone unless the judgment is reversed or vacated on appeal? (10) Isn’t it true and/or fact, courts are not to Legislate from bench? (11) Isn’t it true and/or fact, statutes are construed with all doubts in favor of the petitioner? (12) Isn’t it true and/or fact, the language in which a statute was originally formed is controlling?