The discussion about constitutionality of delegation of legislative powers from parliament to government is probably one of the most important debates in Czechoslovak inter-war legal scholarship. The article firstly presents the first decision of Czechoslovak constitutional court from November 1922, when the court expressed the opinion that very wide delegation of legislative power is unconstitutional. Next, the article chronologically follows the discussion between advocates of wide delegation (typically Jiří Hoetzel) and its critics (typically Jaroslav Krejčí) against the background of legislative practice (enabling acts of 1920, 1933 and 1934) and of case-law (in 1936 supreme administrative court decided on illegality of government decree issued on the basis of wide delegation of legislative powers, in 1937 both supreme court and supreme administrative court put motions to constitutional court suggesting unconstitutionality of enabling act of 1934, in 1939 constitutional court decided on unconstitutionality of legislative act because it had established such a wide delegation). The article tries to critically examine arguments pro et contra wide delegation of legislative powers and basically agrees with critics of this wide delegation: The decisive arguments are (next to those already presented in contemporary Czech legal scholarship) that even lawgiver can use its powers only in cases when constitution expressly permit it and that very wide delegation of legislative powers to government makes judicial review of government decrees (issued on the basis of the delegation) excessively difficult or even impossible. Inspired by the inter-war discussion the article concludes by theoretical elaboration of general concept of authorization and tries to distinguish three types of authorization – non-exclusive grant of competences (powers), exclusive conferring (or “lending”) of competences and transfer of competences.