Well, then he'll be overturned on appeal.
Except that the idiot Stanley has admitted to violating the ordinance.
Which is called civil disobedience. MLK built a career on it.
Or is that a reserved career path?
No "except". That is what is called an affirmative defense: the defendant says, in effect, "yes, I violated that law - and because of circumstances and other laws, I am not guilty" (hence the critical importance of him being able to quote laws in his defense, and the outrage due the judge forbidding such quotations).
Example:
I frequently carry a firearm. One section of New York law flatly prohibits posession of firearms...but another section exempts me because of my carry permit. I could be charged with violating the "no firearms" law, and my affirmative defense would be that because I have a proper carry permit, another law exempts me from the prior law.
The Denver judge forbidding mention of the Constitution is like a judge forbidding me from quoting the law exempting me from punishment for firearms posession. In Stanley's case, the 2nd Amendment trumps the law forbidding his actions, and Stanley's affirmative defense is to quote the trump law.