43:42 A close second, I think it's even uglier. Cuz the North Korean building is at least gigantic and a big pyramid and super evil looking, but it's still disgusting. But there's still something powerful about it. So it gets a 95 for ugliness. Obama's looks pathetic and weak on top of it. So it's a 100 perfect, it looks like a trash can. Good point. I mean, come on people, it's little. Sorry, I'm ranting back back to Roberts on the tax It's not an official tax levy by Congress in the Constitution and you know that Chief Justice. You're not stupid well
44:26 Like Jackson here it is first part, but I mean and I think this is a question for the other side as well It's too too facing. Yes, of course tariffs dealings with foreign powers But the vehicle is in position of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress So to have the president's foreign affairs power Trump that that basic power for Congress It was again They said the World Trade Organization, all part of the UN and the globalists, put China on his most favorite trading nation, let them do whatever they wanted, screwed us. Clinton's got all that through. Nobody cared when China had 100%, 200% tariffs on different things. Oh, that wasn't a tax. Roberts doesn't care about that. He cares about Trump trying to get you a better deal and have America, just, when you listen to it, you're informed, it's such horse crap.
45:27 Sorry, I'm gonna stop now, play all clips together. Neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. Let me say two things in response to that. First, the notion that these are all, the taxes are all borne by Americans and are not borne by foreign producers whose goods are imported is empirically, there's no basis for that in the record. It's actually a mixed... Well, who pays the tariffs? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, Who pays them? Typically there'd be a, regardless of who the importer of record is, there'd be a contract that would go along the sort of line of transfer that would allocate the tariff and there'd be different, sometimes the foreign producer would pay them, sometimes the importer would bear the cost. The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company. A lot of times it's... And if you choose to buy the car, you pay it. It's not a tax, it's voluntary, Roberts.
46:19 The empirical estimates range from like 30% to 80% of like how much is borne by the American citizens. I mean it's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically. There certainly is an incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs that they do raise revenue, but it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue raising tariffs. And the way you can see this, I think, if you look at this policy, This policy is by far the most effective if nobody ever pays the tariffs. I say two policies, right? So if you look at the trade deficit emergency, if nobody ever pays the tariffs and instead Americans direct their consumption towards American producers and stimulate the rebuilding of our hollowed out manufacturing base, then the policy is by far the most effective. So a tariff, a regulatory tariff that... So why not do what the statute permits, bar importation of products altogether? That would be the most effective way to do it.
47:12 The question about the history... You follow the statute. The statute says the president can do that. What it doesn't say is the president can raise revenues. What it says is he can regulate importation and go on for hundreds of years, the way you regulated it was terrible. Causing it, subjecting some countries and not others to importation bans. There's a lot of verbs, but none of them include generating revenue. as a side effect or directly. As to regulated importation, that was held in TWAIA. So obviously and that's okay. Okay, so an intermediate appellate court held it in TWAIA, but you just told Justice Kavanaugh that wasn't your lead argument, that your lead argument was this long history of the phrase regulate importation being understood.
48:17 to include tariff authorities. So my question is, has there ever been another instance in which a statute has conferred, used that language to confer the power? Putting aside Yoshida. I mean obviously other statutory example that just imports the cases we rely on are cases where for example in Gibbons it's Ogden and Justice Sori's treaty says... But that just shows the word can be used that way. None of those cases talked about it as conferring tariff authority. I understood you to be citing McGoldrick and Gibbons in those cases just to show that it's possible to say that regulating commerce includes the power to tariff. I think our argument goes a bit further than that as an interpretive matter because if you look at that history, the history of delegation... Could you just answer the Justice's question?
48:58 Can you identify any statute that use that phrase to confer tariffs? Yeah, the only two statutes I can identify now are TWAIA as interpreted in Yoshida and then closely related not regulated importation but adjust imports in section 232. Well, I think adjust imports is differently. So the answer is the contested application in TWAIA and then now in IEPA. And then of course, I mean, there's a sort of direct line there. Yeah, I understand that. But then more fundamentally, we rely on historical sources to show there's this long historical pedigree of broad delegations of the foreign commerce power, not the power to tax that we're not asserting here, delegations of the foreign commerce power to the president,
49:38 Going back to Gibbons against Ogden all the way through McGoldrick and Board of Trustees where this court and founding heiress sources say the power to in other words the power to tariff is kind of this natural you know as everyone knows that includes the plain text general exercise any president under TWA Did any president under Tawiyah use that language to impose tariffs? Well, yes. President Nixon's 1971 tariff was visibly... Not a tariff. That wasn't a tariff. It was a licensing agreement during wartime. It was a specific thing. I'm terrified I'm talking about. I'm referring to President Nixon's 1971 terrorist attack. Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me, yes, I thought you meant Lincoln. Not only that, but then it was upheld by the Court of Appeals with exclusive jurisdiction under this very frame. Can I back you up just a second? I'm sorry, you're talking so quickly. You can pull it up, the US Supreme Court five times.
50:37 has ruled presidents can do exactly what Trump did and the appeals courts have done it just countless times. And she's like, you show me a time. Okay, Richard Nixon. Okay, sorry. Remember, she couldn't answer in confirmation, what is a woman? It is a adult female human, a mammal, a mammal, adult female human. Just that's, you could do it. You could do it. You come on, you can do it. And you know what a tariff is too, right? All right.