德國立法實務上近十年的發展，以「修改命令的保留」方式，有別於傳統的國會監督行政命令之方式，此種經由立法機關逕行修改法規命令之方式，在論理上立法權為憲法保留給國會之固有職權，國會益於事實上之需要主動授權行政部門制定法規命令，並非表示從此喪失對授權事項之監督權限。而授權立法僅為行政部門之衍生權限，非其固有的獨占權限，國會就授權事項施以監督，不能謂係侵犯行政權或牴觸權力分立原則。另立法者針對法規命令所為之修正，係對法規命令之內容，故修正之對象應屬法規命令之性質，而非法律。至於修改法規命令之程序，得以國會單純之決議為之，以資與修改法律的程序相區別。最後，透過立法者修改法規命令應有其界限，除受憲法和立法者原先的自我意志拘束外，並應避免侵及行政權的核心功能。

In Germany, recent development for the past 10 years of legislative experience was mostly formed as “reservation of amended order”, which is different from the traditional form of “Congress’s supervision to administrative order”. Parliament had direct power to amend regulatory order. Legislative power is authorized to Congress by the constitutional law. Congress authorizes iniciatively to executive department for rulemaking. That does not mean to be deprived from supervising authority. Authorized power to rulemaking is just the overflowing authority of the executive branch, but not its original and monopole authority. Therefore, when a Congress supervises to the authorized item, that does not mean to invade executive power or to conflict the principle of check and balance. Parliament amends to administrative order, the contents is regulatory order, the amended object is the regulatory order, not the law, in order to distinguish the amending procedures between law and regulatory order, the latter should be done in simple Congress’s resolution. Finally, there is limitation in the situation of amending regulatory order by the parliament. Parlimaent should be restrained by constitutional law and its original self-will, and should avoid to invade the core-function of executive power.