POINT OF VIEW

Some Definitions...
The term “commander-in-chief” derives from the Latin imperator. Imperatores (commanders-in-chief) of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire possessed imperium (command) powers. In its modern usage, the term was first used by King Charles I of England in 1639. A nation’s head of state usually holds the position of national commander-in-chief, even if effective executive power is held by a separate head of government.
The Constitution of the United States gives the title to the President of the United States, who “shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”. The title commander-in-chief has been used from time to time to refer to powerful regional U.S. military leaders (such as CENTCOM), but the United States abolished all local commands-in-chief in 2002.
The governors of the states are also commanders-in-chief of their states’ respective National Guard and other military forces, except when those forces are called into active federal service. This temporarily ended with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, a federal law that established the governor of a state was no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States would then be able to take control of a state’s National Guard units without the governor’s consent.] In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.These changes were repealed in 2008, restoring full command within a state to that state’s governor. This restoration of gubernatorial authority occurred by repealing the 2006 amendments to the Insurrection Act.
Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the monarch of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President’s civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd. The American presidency thus departs from the civilian basis of virtually all other republics. In 1867 Congress attempted to limit the President’s powers as Commander in Chief by passing the Army Appropriations Act. The Act included the “command of the army” provisions, which required that the president issue all commands to the army through the General of the Army. This act was condemned by President Andrew Johnson, but he nevertheless signed it into law.
In the U/S., the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Under Goldwater-Nichols, regional CINCs were created to bring a local supreme commander to a conflict, the most well-known of which was CINC CENTCOM.
On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of “Commander-in-Chief” would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as “combatant commanders,” heading the Unified Combatant Commands.
In 2008, there are ten Unified Combatant Commands. Six have regional responsibilities, and four have functional responsibilities. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.
In the War on Terrorism President George W. Bush has used these war powers to justify several controversial acts, such as the NSA electronic surveillance program and enhanced interrogation techniques. The administration, on several occasions, has promoted a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to explain that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by any law or Congress. Advocates of this theory opine that since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional. In the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy this was used to suggest he was not required to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).[6] The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment.
From Wikipedia
The Free Encyclopedia