Bush's argument echoes that of King Charles I

Mark Kleiman goes back into British Pariamentary history for an earlier example of the argument that Bush is making about his absolute and unfettered "Constitutionsl" power as Commander-in-Chief in Wartime.

"In the debate over ship-money (a form of unParliamentary taxation claimed by Charles I as an emergency wartime measure encompassed by the royal prerogative) at the beginning of the Long Parliament, Lord Falkland made a simple argument. If, said Falkland, the king is the sole judge in necessity (i.e., has unlimited emergency powers) and at the same time the sole judge of necessity (with unreviewable discretion to decide what constitutes an emergency) then the monarchy is absolute."[Underlining mine - RB]

Charles I (as I recall) was a poor manager, but "strong-willed" (another term for stubborn with those who opposed him.) He forced a showdown with Parliament (which objected to his mismanagement of affairs) that resulted in the English Civil War and his own execution in 1649. (Britania - Monarchs of Britain.)

Bush 43, who also inherited his position, appears to mimic Charles I in that he is strong-willed and mismanages governmental affairs badly. Also Bush 43's argument that he is an absolute monarch is no better than the argument offered by Charles I.