In a Colorado courtroom on Wednesday, one of Donald Trump's lawyers made a surprising admission, stating that "we're all sort of making it up at the end of the day" during a dispute over the definition of the term "insurrection." The statement came amidst appeals being heard by the Colorado Supreme Court against a lower court ruling, which argued that Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution, and then engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," from holding any office, civil or military. The lower court ruling concluded that Trump was "engaged in insurrection" on January 6, 2021, but it sparked a legal debate as to whether the amendment covers serving as president.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in many states, with the aim of removing Trump from primary ballots under the 14th Amendment. Former federal prosecutor Adam Kamenstein described the case as "compelling," though Trump has strongly rejected these claims, labeling them as "election interference."

The appeal is being pursued by both the initial applicants, a group of Colorado voters, and Trump's legal team. The voters argue that Trump is ineligible to hold the office of president again, while Trump's team is challenging the earlier ruling that he was engaged in insurrection.

During the Colorado Supreme Court hearing, Trump's lawyer, Scott Gessler, engaged in a clash with Justice Richard Gabriel over the definition of insurrection. Justice Gabriel proposed that preventing the peaceful transfer of power of the United States government could constitute an insurrection. Gessler responded by stating that historical context suggests insurrection involves a substantial duration, a geographical scope, and a goal of nullifying all governmental authority in an area.

Justice Gabriel countered, referring to the definition provided in Webster's Third International Dictionary, which defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or against an established government." Gessler cited the attorney general's briefs and the historical record as sources for his definition while acknowledging that everyone involved in the case was "sort of making it up at the end of the day."

Gessler also argued that the events of January 6 should be classified as a riot rather than an insurrection, as the Trump supporters who stormed Congress did not deploy firearms. He emphasized that the use of force did not involve the level of arms necessary to overcome.

However, Justice William Hood challenged Gessler's position, highlighting that around 170 police officers were injured and noting the significant damage caused by makeshift weapons.

The legal battle over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and whether it applies to Trump's eligibility to serve as president again continues to unfold. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Trump's political future, but also for the understanding of the boundaries and consequences of engaging in insurrection.

Newsweek has reached out to Donald Trump for comment but has not received a response at the time of writing.