Implied where? You mean in the same way that “penumbras and emanations” are “implied” for Roe vs. Wade?
Implied by the definition of the term “executive”.
Just like you would expect a legislator to write a bill in a form that expresses a problem to be solved, and the specific steps expected to be taken to solve the problem.
Nowhere in the constitution does it mention committees. Are committees unconstitutional? Should the congress only conduct business with the entire body? conference committees are not mentioned either. The constitution simply says that each legislative body can set their own rules.
The executive is supposed to “execute the laws”. That requires the signing of contracts, and contracts have terms, and it is an executive function to shape the terms of contracts.
Is there an explicit law that provides cover for the president to set a specific minimum wage for a contract? I don’t think so, but I also don’t know of any law that says that no contract by the executive can set a wage other than the minimum wage.
I would note that there are many thousands of employment contracts put out for bid; in many cases, they are for specific services.
So I’ll leave you with one example. The government requires an IT team to fix a computer, and rather than paying a company to do it, they decide to contract directly for employment under government control.
So, they put out a bid for a service company to provide a team of three IT people — a lead, and two subordinates. And they specify that the lead will have a salary of $80,000, and the subordinates will be paid $60,000 each.
Do you think that this would be unconstitutional because the wage specified is not “minimum wage”?
Frankly, I think the real message we should be sending here, beyond the “this president is certainly stretching his duties and responsibilities to a ridiculous length for political purposes”, is that this move is meaningless, and beneath the office of the presidency to suggest that doing this will help anybody or accomplish anything.