[sinkspur]

You do not have a problem with this?

I have nothing to corroborate what the judge said or the context in which he said it, other than this posting from a libertarian web site.

If the defense attorney (as I suspect) was going to make his case, not on whether his client violated the ordinance, but on the US Constitution, then I can see where the judge might have said what he said. This was a city court, it was a city case.

The attorney was grandstanding, and the judge was not going to allow him to turn the court room into a circus.

[CyberCowboy777]

I do not care what the "circumstances" are or if the accused is a wacko. There is no legitimate reason to ban constitutional arguments or the mentioning of constitutional rights. We cannot allow judges to decide when the constitution is relevant, it is always relevant. Who in their right mind would want a judge to decide when the constitution applies?