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?
"For if the President's default power to order warrantless surveillance stems from his inherent default authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, then surely the specific authority of Congress, expressly granted by the Constitution, to prescribe rules and regulations of those same forces can change the default."
Ignoring the difference between "rules and regulations" and "the conduct of war" is his whole shtick.
But that difference is just what's in dispute!
(Gee, how many Dorfs are there commenting on law?)