★
Executive Orders Historical Archive
Cite
Executive Order 6434 🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority Constitutional Neutral (+0.02) 📜 10th Amend: Intergovernmental Federalism Cooperation

Executive Order 6434—Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry

•
Friday, November 17, 1933
•
4 min read (874 words)

Executive Brief • At a Glance

⏱️ 4 min read (874 words) • ● In Effect
🎯 Primary Mandate

I, Franklin D. Roosevelt , President of the United States, pursuant to the authority vested in me by title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, and otherwise, do hereby adopt and approve the report, recommendations, and findings of the Administrator and do order that the said code of fair competition be and it is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: A. A committee appointed by representatives of several of the States having heretofore drafted a tentative code or compact concerning prison labor, the purpose of which is the establishment of fair competition between the products of prisons and the products of competing private industry, and containing provisions the intention of which is…

⚖️ Constitutional Footing
🏛️✅ Zone 1: Maximum Authority
Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
📜 10th Amend: Intergovernmental Federalism Cooperation
🏛️ Scope & Affected Sectors
Merchants, Importers & Commercial Enterprises Sovereign State Governments & Localities

Plain-English Translation & Framers' Constitutional Analysis

Early Statesman synthesis distilling legal jargon into practical meaning, statutory anchors, and structural constitutional impacts.

Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on November 17, 1933, this order concerns Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry. I, Franklin D. Roosevelt , President of the United States, pursuant to the authority vested in me by title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, and otherwise, do hereby adopt and approve the report, recommendations, and findings of the Administrator and do order that the said code of fair competition be and it is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: A. A committee…

Constitutional Assessment: Reviewed under the Tenth Amendment and the principle of dual federalism, this order touches upon domains traditionally reserved to the sovereign States. The Framers would caution against any attempt to commandeer state officers or displace local police powers through federal executive fiat.

Key Directives & Operative Actions

▪

I, Franklin D. Roosevelt , President of the United States, pursuant to the authority vested in me by title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, and otherwise, do hereby adopt and approve the report, recommendations, and findings of the Administrator and do order that the said code of fair competition be and it is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: A. A committee appointed by representatives of several of the States having heretofore drafted a tentative code or compact concerning prison labor, the purpose of which is the establishment of fair competition between the products of prisons and the products of competing private industry, and containing provisions the intention of which is…

▪

The hours of labor of prisoners shall be not greater than the hours prescribed in the code of fair competition of the competing private domestic industry. 2.

▪

Prison products when sold by the prison or through a contractor, whether sold direct or through any agency, shall be sold not lower than the current price prevailing in the market in which the product is customarily sold,—to wholesalers, retailers, or consumers as the case may be. 3.

▪

Unless it requires a higher price than specified in paragraph 2, the State shall be paid on all contracts for the labor of prisoners an amount equal to the cost per unit for labor and overhead of the comparable product necessarily paid in competing domestic private industry. 4.

Constitutional & Societal Entities Impacted

🏛️ Merchants, Importers & Commercial Enterprises 🏛️ Sovereign State Governments & Localities
🏛️

The Framers' Constitutional Council

1787 Prism

Evaluating this order against the constitutional debates of 1787 and the limits of Article II executive power.

🏛️✅ Zone 1 (Maximum Authority)
§

"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."

— Justice Robert H. Jackson, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
JM

James Madison

Separation of Powers & Legislative Primacy

"The constitutional magistracy was designed not to invent policy, but to be the faithful instrument of the laws passed by the people's representatives." — Speech in the First Congress (1789)

Madison would approve the structural posture of this order. The President acts strictly in subordination to statutory authority granted under Article II, Section 3 ("take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). The checks and balances hold firm because the policy origin remains with the legislature.

Madisonian Stance: Concurring (Statutory)
AH

Alexander Hamilton

The Energetic Executive & Unified Command

"A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." — Federalist No. 70 (1788)

Hamilton would view this directive as the natural and indispensable functioning of administrative leadership. Without the power to coordinate agencies, manage personnel, and resolve operational ambiguities, the modern presidency would be reduced to an impotent figurehead.

Hamiltonian Stance: Supportive of Execution
GM

George Mason

Bill of Rights, Due Process & 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." — 10th Amendment to the US Constitution (1791)

Mason would scrutinize whether this federal directive intrudes into police powers, land stewardship, or municipal domains historically reserved to local citizens. The Anti-Federalist demand is that federal administration must never supplant state self-governance.

Anti-Federalist Stance: Eternal Vigilance Required
📐

Five Measurable "Constitutional Friction" Dimensions

An objective audit measuring potential separation-of-powers tension against the United States Constitution and established Supreme Court doctrine.

🛡️ High Constitutional Concordance
27 / 100 friction index
Dimension 1 • Art. I, §1 & §8

Legislative Encroachment & Purse

Low Friction

Operates within delegated statutory execution without modifying legislative appropriations or taxing powers.

Benchmark: Power of the purse, taxes/tariffs, and rule of law reserved to Congress.
Dimension 2 • Art. II, §1 & §3

Executive Scope & Faithfulness

Low Friction

Exercises standard supervisory executive authority to faithfully execute existing statutes.

Benchmark: Faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress vs. unilateral decree.
Dimension 3 • 10th Amendment

Federalism & State Sovereignty

Moderate Friction

Engages state and local partners in cooperative federalism programs.

Benchmark: Police powers and un-delegated responsibilities reserved to the States.
Dimension 4 • 5th & 14th Amendments

Due Process & Individual Rights

Moderate Friction

Applies regulatory or compliance standards to private contractors or commercial entities.

Benchmark: Protection of private property, contracts, liberty, and procedural justice.
Dimension 5 • Separation of Powers

Youngstown Jacksonian Tier

Low Friction

The President operates strictly as the constitutional Chief Executive, carrying out policy established by Congress with strong statutory backing.

Benchmark: Express or Implied Congressional Authorization
⚖️ Audit Synthesis

This order operates in close harmony with statutory authority and standard Article II supervisory execution.

Weighted composite: Art. I (25%), Art. II (25%), Federalism (15%), Due Process (15%), Youngstown (20%).
ℹ️
How to read these dimensions: Executive power expands whenever an administration acts without explicit statutory authorization from Congress (Article I), touches upon police powers historically reserved to the states (Tenth Amendment), or limits private rights and property without judicial process. A low friction score indicates strict concordance with enacted law; a high friction score highlights orders testing the limits of presidential discretion.
Total Words
874
5,231 characters
Estimated Read Time
4 min
@ 200 words / min
Flesch-Kincaid
28.7
Post-Graduate Legal
Language Tone Score
+0.02
Constitutional Neutral
How is this scored?
Text size:

Official Archival Text

View Source Document

An application having been duly made, pursuant to and in full compliance with the provisions of title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, for my approval of a Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry, and hearings having been held thereon and the Administrator having rendered his report containing an analysis of the said code of fair competition together with his recommendations and findings with respect thereto, and the Administrator having found that the said code of fair competition complies in all respects with the pertinent provisions of title I of said act and that the requirements of clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of section 3 of the said Act have been met, Now, Therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt , President of the United States, pursuant to the authority vested in me by title I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, approved June 16, 1933, and otherwise, do hereby adopt and approve the report, recommendations, and findings of the Administrator and do order that the said code of fair competition be and it is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: A. A committee appointed by representatives of several of the States having heretofore drafted a tentative code or compact concerning prison labor, the purpose of which is the establishment of fair competition between the products of prisons and the products of competing private industry, and containing provisions the intention of which is substantially the same as is hereinafter referred to, the code or compact shall be deemed to be satisfactory under the requirement in article VIII C of the within code if and so long as the compact or code adopted by the States provides for and accomplishes the following in relation to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of products made in whole or in part by prisoners: 1. The hours of labor of prisoners shall be not greater than the hours prescribed in the code of fair competition of the competing private domestic industry. 2. Prison products when sold by the prison or through a contractor, whether sold direct or through any agency, shall be sold not lower than the current price prevailing in the market in which the product is customarily sold,—to wholesalers, retailers, or consumers as the case may be. 3. Unless it requires a higher price than specified in paragraph 2, the State shall be paid on all contracts for the labor of prisoners an amount equal to the cost per unit for labor and overhead of the comparable product necessarily paid in competing domestic private industry. 4. The hours of operation of productive machinery shall be not more than is prescribed in the code of the competing private domestic industry. 5. Nothing in said compact or code shall affect in any way any Federal act relating to prison-made products, or any State act passed or effective under any such Federal act, if said acts are held constitutional and valid. 6. A code authority set up in the compact shall have the power to administer, supervise, and enforce said code and establish the prices and costs of prison-made goods as required in paragraphs 2 and 3 above after conferring with the code authority of the affected industry, from which decision an appeal shall be allowed to the President of the United States. 7. The code authority set up in the compact, after an investigation which shall include a consideration of economic, trade, and market conditions, shall (1) formulate such regulations as may be consistent and lawful and as may be necessary to assure a diversification of the output of "prison industries" in fair proportion to the production of any competing private domestic industry affected, and (2) prohibit the expansion of any existing prison industry which is causing a disproportionate competition with any private domestic industry. 8. Such other provisions as will assure a fair basis of competition not inconsistent with the above. B. That the application of section G of article IV be and hereby is stayed as to members of the industry located in the State of Kentucky and in those counties in the States of Illinois and Indiana which border on the Ohio River for such period as the Administrator shall determine, which period shall not exceed 4 months from and after the effective date of the aforesaid Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry, that during such period the said members of the industry located in the State of Kentucky and in those counties in the States of Illinois and Indiana bordering on the Ohio River shall be included in the southern section of the industry for the purposes of the aforesaid article IV, that during such period the Administrator shall hold such hearings and cause such investigations to be made as he may deem necessary to determine the classification of the above area for the purposes of the aforesaid article IV, and that prior to the termination of such period the Administrator shall determine the classification of the said area for the purposes of said article IV of the said Code of Fair Competition for the Cotton Garment Industry. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, Approval recommended: Hugh S. Johnson. Administrator. The White House, November 17, 1933.

📜

Scholarly & Legal Citations

Exec. Order No. 6434 (Nov. 17, 1933), https://executiveordersarchive.org/orders/app-executive-order-6434-code-fair-competition-for-the-cotton-garment-industry.