In the case of William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company v. United States (1909), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a contract between the government and a private company for building warships was not unconstitutional, even though Congress had not specifically authorized it. The court held that such contracts were within executive power as long as they did not violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. The shipbuilding company argued that without explicit congressional approval, the contract violated Article I, Section 8 of Constitution which gives Congress exclusive power to raise and support armies. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority stated that while Congress has this authority, it does not mean other branches are prohibited from taking actions related to defense unless explicitly directed by legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Constitution. He contended that Congress did not have unlimited power to spend public money on private enterprises, even if it is in service of national defense or general welfare. According to him, such an interpretation would allow Congress to bypass constitutional limitations by simply labeling any expenditure as being for 'general welfare'. He also expressed concern about potential corruption and favoritism arising from this unchecked spending power. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that building warships was inherently governmental function; instead asserting it could be done by private entities without government funding. Thus, he believed that paying a shipbuilding company directly violated Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution which grants Congress only specific powers related to taxation and spending.