Under the Articles of Confederation the congress could run the war, that power was taken from them in the constitution.
It can be an interesting question at what point exactly the congressional and presidential powers divide. Just claiming the power to make "rules and regulations" as an expressed grant to congress of the power to conduct warfare is not historical or helpful.
Indecisive (IMHO) but helpful essay: Toward a Discretionary Post-9/11 Public Policy that Remains Constitutional: Lessons from the Civil War
Maybe he is. I won't contest that one way or the other.
Michael Dorf, on the other hand, seems to know what he's talking about.
Just claiming the power to make "rules and regulations" as an expressed grant to congress of the power to conduct warfare is not historical or helpful.
Where did he claim that in this piece?