[tpaine]

Nor is it in the jurisdiction of a county criminal court to rule on Constitutional issues.

Exactly the point here. -- The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.

ALL you who argue the states position on these fundamental issues are arguing AGAINST your own constitutional rights. - In unbelievable displays of statist denial.

[sinkspur]

The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.

Well, then he'll be overturned on appeal.

Except that the idiot Stanley has admitted to violating the ordinance.

[r9etb]

The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.

In doing so, however, the lawyer is attempting to ask this jury, and this county criminal court, to rule on the Constitutionality of this particular ordinance. This is a power that is reserved to the Federal judiciary.

As such, the judge was correct to rule that issues of Constitutional law cannot be brought up as a defense in this case. To rule any other way would be a usurpation of the Constitution.

Now that Stanley has apparently been convicted, he has every right to challenge the Constitutionality of this ordinance in the proper forum. I hope he wins, too.

But he'd be a horrible senator, and he will deservedly be trounced.

[VA Advogado]

Exactly the point here. -- The judge has no right or jurisdiction to stop the defendant from raising these 'constitutional issues' to the jury, in his defense.

This lawyer is not unlike you. Raising unrelated and irrelvant issues and basically making an ass out of himself. You both belong in the criminal justice system.