What differentiates the arguments of Arthur Schlesinger from those of Edward Corwin and Clinton Rossitier?

What will be an ideal response?

The ideal answer should:
a. Identify Corwin, Rossiter, and Schlesinger as three of the most prominent scholars of war and presidential power.
b. Explain the arguments of Corwin and Rossiter, noting that both of them saw wars as leading to an increase in presidential power, with Rossiter maintaining that power could be used in other policy spheres and that a growth in power did not have to come from a great president in a great war.
c. Distinguish how Schlesinger disagreed with Corwin and Rossiter's assertion that presidential power decreases at the end of a conflict; rather, he held that it continues to accrue, as evidenced by how the presidency was "resurgent" in World War II,"ascendant" in the Korean War, and "rampant" in Vietnam.
d. Contrast Rossiter's idea of a constitutional dictator—which asserted that for a state to survive a war, political power had to be concentrated in the presidency, power had to be exercised beyond its traditional bounds, and the executive branch had to be liberated from constitutional prescriptions—with Schlesinger's imperial presidency, in which the presidency is virtually unchecked by the other branches of government in perpetuity.