John J. Pitney Jr.

“I feel very strongly about our Constitution,” Donald Trump told Fox News in January. “I’m proud of it, I love it and I want to go through the Constitution.” That comment was the political equivalent of “I’ll respect you in the morning” — another line that Trump has probably used from time to time, and one that's just about as meaningful.

GOP Rep. Mark Sanford told reporters in July about a meeting between Trump and congressional Republicans: “At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII.”

One real part of the Constitution is the Fifth Amendment, which forbids government to take private property “for public use, without just compensation.” Trump has a long history of abusing this process for his own gain. He explained himself this way: “So eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it’s a wonderful thing, I’ll be honest with you. And remember, you’re not taking property…” Huh? Of course you’re taking property: that’s why the law calls it “a taking.”

Khizr Khan, who lost his son in Iraq, gave a moving speech at the Democratic National Convention in which he criticized Trump for not understanding the Constitution. Trump responded that Khan had “no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things." Ironically, the response proved Khan’s point. The First Amendment secures his right to say nearly anything he wants, even if it is untrue — which in this case it was not. Indeed, if making false statements were illegal, Trump himself would have had to put on an orange jumpsuit long ago.

Immigration lawyer: Trump's wall won't work

Though his ignorance may seem amusing at first, Trump's disregard for constitutional principles is deeply disturbing. In a tweet, he elaborated on his understanding of the First Amendment: “It is not `freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!” Over and over, he has said that he would somehow “open up” the libel laws so that he and other public figures could more easily sue news organizations. If they don’t retract these purportedly false statements, he said, “they should, you know, have a form of a trial.”

Legal scholars define a “chilling effect” as a situation where the fear of a penalty suppresses legitimate speech or conduct. What Trump is proposing is the greatest chilling effect since Elsa let it go in Frozen.

Trump does not acknowledge any limits to presidential power, at least for presidents named Trump. In December, he promised that he would sign an executive order mandating the death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer. Under Article I, however, only Congress sets the penalties for federal offenses. Under the Tenth Amendment, only the state governments do the same for state offenses. A president cannot simply decree “Off with their heads!” That’s Wonderland, not America.

Article II directs the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Article VI provides that treaties are part of “the supreme law of the land.” These treaties include the Geneva Conventions, which govern the conduct of war. Yet in direct contradiction to these treaties, Trump has said that the United States should have stolen Iraqi oil and that we should kill the families of terrorists. As he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “Everybody believes in the Geneva Convention until they start losing and then they say oh, let’s take out the bomb. OK. When they start losing. We have to play with a tougher set of rules.”

Trump wasted his chance for a convention bounce: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

The real extent of his aspirations became clear on May 26, during a speech that didn’t get as much attention as it should have. “Politicians have used you and stolen your votes. They have given you nothing,” Trump told an audience in North Dakota. “I will give you everything. I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years. I’m the only one.”

Think about that. The Constitution established a government of laws and limits, not individual whims. But Trump promised his listeners that he would provide them with whatever they wanted — and that it would be his personal gift.

Alexander Hamilton warned: “[Of] those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” One would hope that Hamilton and the other Framers built a system that would keep Trump from becoming a tyrant. But as we observe Constitution Day, we should reflect that a man who could be president neither knows nor cares about our nation’s basic law.

John J. Pitney, Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and a former Republican aide on Capitol Hill.

To read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers, go to the Opinion front page, follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion and sign up for our daily Opinion newsletter.