French President of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, has strongly opposed the idea proposed by Bruno Retailleau, a presidential candidate from the center-right party Les Républicains, who wants to introduce a new process that would allow French citizens to have the final say if a law is rejected by the Constitutional Council. During an interview with the newspaper Le Figaro, Retailleau suggested that if elected president, he would push for a constitutional reform that would enable the head of state to offer the public a chance to either reject the Constitutional Council’s decision through a referendum or to convene Parliament in a special session. This would essentially allow citizens to "censor the censorship," as Retailleau put it. Braun-Pivet expressed her "total disagreement" with this proposal during a visit to the Châlons-en-Champagne fair. She emphasized that the Constitutional Council and the French Constitution are "our most precious asset" and that politicians must respect the decisions made by the Council. Rather than challenging those decisions, she argued, lawmakers should focus on revising and improving legislation to align with constitutional principles. Her comments come in the wake of a recent decision by the Constitutional Council to strike down a law that would have banned children under 15 from using social networks. The Council ruled that the law was "not well calibrated in light of our great freedoms." Braun-Pivet used this example to highlight her belief that politicians should not accept such rulings passively. Instead, she urged lawmakers to have the courage to revisit the legislation and improve it while upholding fundamental freedoms. The debate reflects a broader discussion about the balance between constitutional authority and democratic participation in France. While Retailleau seeks to give citizens more power to override constitutional decisions, Braun-Pivet and others argue that the Constitutional Council’s role is essential in ensuring the legality and balance of laws. The disagreement underscores the ongoing tension between maintaining constitutional order and expanding opportunities for public input in the legislative process.