Two events related to our foreign policy are of interest to me and my perspective on our system of government. The first is the apparent failure of the President to go to Congress after the 60 day period prescribed by the War Powers Act to request a declaration of war against Libya. This requirement has never been enforced, and it is not surprising that Obama also has ignored it. With respect to foreign relations and warmaking, he is as imperial as any other President. Congress seems to have accepted this. The Republicans have even suggested a bill that would explicitly recognize the President's ability to make war at will whenever and wherever he wants. Such a de facto ability essentially means that one man, no matter how "democratically elected", has effective control over the country, since by making war, the President can justify any measure necessary to conduct the war, including rule by executive order. All of this may seem to be comfortably theoretical, but to me it is a real possibility. A government where this is possible is to me not a democratic government.
The second event was Obama's speech about his approach to the Israel-Palestinian problem. He set out a new or at least provocative stance on the issues, much to the dismay of Netanyahu. Netanyahu then went to Congress where he criticized the President to the applause of Congress. Clearly Congress and the President are at odds about our policy toward Israel. The issue for me is not who has the right policy, the President or Congress, but who is in charge of formulating foreign policy. Howevermuch I may agree with Obama's approach, to me this is just another example of where the President feels able to proceed imperially, in defiance of Congress, with his own interpretation of what is best for the country. Again, to me this is not what I understand to be a democratic process.
Meanwhile the House is encouraged to continue on its irresponsible, childish course, with the connivance of the Senate.