Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over .
and enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.
The advertising industry is impressed with public interest and lust, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general welfare.
"[2] The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.
Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.
They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.
"[14][15] In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
[22] Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[23] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[24] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion.
Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[25] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds.
Article IV of the Constitution of Massachusetts provides authority for the state to make laws "as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth.