Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.
Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.