Setting aside the actual merits of the trade pact President Obama has been pushing, the defeat handed to him Friday was at least in some measure a win for democracy. With the continuing – and distressingly bipartisan – evolution of presidential power, it is good to see Congress get up on its hind legs.

Now, if some of that only could transfer to the power to make war.

At issue was President Obama’s ability to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade pact among Pacific nations that is said to involve 40 percent of the world’s international business. The president has been seeking so-called fast-track authority, under which he could work out the details of the trade pact and submit it to Congress for an up or down vote with no amendments allowed.

It is a politically confusing situation. Republicans, reflecting their pro-business and corporate base, generally have supported the president on this. Democrats, on the other hand, have resisted the trade agreement, fearing what it could mean for American workers and their party’s union backers.

And in typical congressional fashion, the actual vote Friday was one of those double-negative parliamentary moves that leaves normal people dizzy. The vote was not about the Trans-Pacific Partnership itself, or the president’s fast-track authority, but a related provision meant to protect workers that originally was enacted and supported by the Democrats. They voted it down because under House rules that headed off further action.

At the same time, most of the associated rhetoric has been gibberish. Supporters tout “free trade” as if all international trade agreements did not also involve tariffs, currency issues and the protection or manipulation of workers. For their part, opponents too often talk as if trade agreements could somehow reverse the affects of a half a century of globalization and the growth of international markets.

For outside observers, it is difficult to know what to think about the TPP for the simple reason that no one knows exactly what it entails. The details and actual language of the deal have not been disclosed.

That secrecy is enough in itself to fuel scepticism and cheer on House intransigeance. It also is enough to suggest that the entire process be rethought.

Obama’s backers and the Republicans who support the TPP point out that every president since Harry Truman has been granted fast-track authority on trade agreements. And perhaps that is an argument for continuing the practice. Australia or China, after all, hardly can be expected to negotiate with 535 members of Congress.

But at the same time, every president since Truman also has sent Americans overseas to kill and be killed without Congress so much as considering an actual declaration of war. Various congressional resolutions or authorizations have served more to provide political cover and mutual deniability. Declaring war would require a clarity of purpose that few military interventions provide and an acceptance of responsibility that no one really wants.

Congressional restraint of presidential war powers is unlikely to happen anytime soon. But an outright rejection of a key part of a president’s agenda by his own party at least serves as a reminder that Congress can act independently, that its actions are not always determined by the White House or political affiliation.

It is unclear what will – or should – happen with the TPP. But Friday’s vote was refreshing nonetheless.