It’s been just one day, but Donald Trump’s comments are already infamous.

Video from 2005 shows Donald Trump telling Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” that he can’t help kissing beautiful women “and when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Politicians across the political spectrum have reacted with outrage. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, has called on Trump to drop out of the race, as has former Utah Gov. Mike Huntsman and other Republicans. Many observers have correctly noted that Trump’s words described sexual assault.

“ Donald Trump has said that, as president, he would order waterboarding and the killing of terrorists’ family members — both illegal acts. ”

Understandably, and for good reason, most commentators and elected officials have focused on this point: that the Republican Party’s presidential candidate apparently believed that, as a celebrity, he had license to molest women. But it’s also worth considering what this tells us about the kind of president that Trump would be.

Under the Constitution, presidential power is limited, subject to checks and balances. Presidents are accountable to the rule of law. In practice, however, presidents have found ways to break free of legal limits on power.

President Harry S. Truman unilaterally went to war with Korea, despite the fact that this action lacked the congressional approval required by the Constitution. President George W. Bush relied on the unitary executive theory to set aside criminal laws prohibiting torture and warrantless surveillance. President Barack Obama, like Truman, has gone to war without congressional approval. The constitutional system depends on each branch of government acting to set limits on power. When it comes to presidential national security power, Congress is best positioned to act, but it is often deferential: With the current presidential war against terrorist group ISIS, Congress has simply failed to weigh in.

In light of this recent history, it is essential that voters (who James Madison identified as the first line of defense against excessive power) pay close attention to candidates for the presidency, and consider whether they would respect legal limits on their power, if elected. We ought to be concerned about any candidate, but Trump’s words from 2005, as well as other comments he has made during this campaign, should give us special pause.

Trump has said he would order waterboarding, a form of torture. Torture, by definition, is illegal under U.S. and international law. Trump said he didn’t care about the legal limits.

Trump has also said he would order the killing of terrorists’ family members. This too would be a war crime. When Trump was asked during a debate last spring whether the military would refuse to carry out orders to waterboard prisoners or kill terrorists’ family members, Trump said: “They won’t refuse me. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me … I’m a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”

Donald Trump claims he 'regrets' lewd words he spoke about women in 2005

When military experts responded with outrage, Trump backed off, saying he would not order the military to violate the law.

We should consider Trump’s videotaped comments from 2005 when we think about whether to believe Trump’s promise not to order the military to violate the law. Trump believed that his star power as a celebrity gave him license to do whatever he wanted with women.

What would a man like this do with the powers of the presidency? It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether he might claim that the powers of the office allow him to set aside laws designed to limit presidential authority.

A president, of course, has more power than a celebrity. Recent history tells us that the Bush administration claimed the power to take actions prohibited by criminal laws. Would a President Trump do the same? His comments from 2005 suggest that this could be more than just a speculative hypothesis.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His latest book is “Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security” (University of Wisconsin Press).