The framers did not deliberately leave or find the phrase 'High crimes and Misdemeanors' ill defined.  Initially they struggled with the term 'maladministration'.  This word was specifically not used since it lacked clarity and definition.  Instead they chose 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' because it was well defined within the framework of English law and had been defined even further due to a recently adjudicated Admiralty case.

Roberto...kudos for your 'well said' comment!

A consensus may be forming on the issue being discussed.  Sadly it is seemingly, 'why bother'!  Have we become so desensitize by a political process so clearly out of control that we believe no viable remedies exist?  Or do we simply lack the courage to take action and demand the necessary changes?

We consistently reelect incumbent politicians at rates of roughly 90%...with little knowledge of their actual beliefs and voting records.  We also seem to defend our own representatives, when they have acted badly, with the "everybody does it" argument without realizing we have both the power and responsibility to find new, competent and ethical representation. 

Based on the above comments (although limited), my takeaway is that we are the problem...we lack the conviction and principles to take action...thus we deserve this leadership. 

Both skipsul and Retail Lawyer point out some of the pragmatic realities surrounding the impeachment process...basically that it would take principled and courageous legislature-statesmen to commence the process, not 'political job protectors' only interested in maintaining their seats of power. 

It appears that some of the later comments agree that Obama should be impeached yet see the process as fraught with danger for the implementers.  I couldn't agree more but where is the 'red line' which catalyzes impeachment...presidential mass murder?

So the Constitution has become a meaningless piece of paper...elected officials may flaunt our laws and trample our rights with impunity...those seem to be the thoughts contained in a majority of the forgoing comments.  Maybe the question should have been, is there anything in the Constitution worth protecting? 

Apparently the number of us that think the Constitution is a very important document, the supreme law of our country...and worth protecting is dwindling.  Yet I am certain of one thing...when our rights are gone it will become an almost 'sacred' manuscript to an overwhelming majority of oppressed Americans!

A better question may be "why aren't there more prominent women in the Liberal movement".  If you put aside extremely gerrymandered districts which elect light weights again and again (e.g. Maxine Waters & Sheila Jackson Lee) you will find the list quite wanting.  By comparison, Ayotte, Martinez, Rice and Palin to name just a few are prominent in conservative circles.

The article was not intended to 'choose' grounds for dealing with the EPA...it was intended to broadly describe the extent of the present problem....both cultural and systemic.  Further no comparisons were made to other administrations.  And finally because similar problems were manifest in the past, are you suggesting that the agency should not be held accountable for those currently existent today...and if necessary not prosecuting those involved based on evidence surfaced in an unbiased investigation?

Comparing Obama's press conference "on gun control" to LBJ's civil rights legislative achievements or the ten year hunt for bin Laden is more than I can stomach...the implied equivalence is absurd!

Pardon me but the basis of your retort was the precious resource, "our children".  No matter how you slice the semantics, children were critical to your presentation/argument.  None of the issues raised by Coulter or Paul premised their objections on those theoretically being protected.  Further my attempt at sarcasm was lost on you and for that I sincerely apologize.   Finally Democrats/liberals incessantly justify specious legislation because it 'will benefit children (lil chillins-colloquial) and older people'.  The use of colloquial expressions is a "device" occasionally used by pundits like Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer both of whom I admire.

Pardon my cynicism but programs executed by the Federal government are seldom "right neutral"...is the TSA "rights neutral" (not a great example but it makes the point)?  And if possible please cite an example of a Federal program that efficiently solved the targeted problem and did not subsequently expand.  This query is not easily answered...is it?

Good grief using the "lil chilluns" (or "the ag'ed") mantra to justify new expenditures and laws that will not solve a problem is not just hackneyed but a favorite tactic of the left..it has become a favorite Democrat/liberal justification for almost anything that they cannot otherwise rationally support...make those who oppose an idea feel guilty.

Well said.  I couldn't agree more.  My cynicism knows few boundaries when it comes to just how dangerous selfishly motivated legislators can be.  Many laws end up a cross between Rube Goldbergish and Orwellian as a consequence.

It is not often I agree with Ron Paul but with respect are we willing to cede even more of our rights to government?  Letting politicians decide using the leverage of emotion is imprudent and dangerous.  If politicians pass one law it will lead to another and then another...soon our schools will become armed camps surrounded by moats, accessed by draw bridges, featuring parapets with machine gun towers and be manned by TSA types who will be rudely barking orders to and groping any that dare attempt entry.  And the security problem will not be solved but boat loads of money will have been spent and our rights degraded. 

My attempt at over the top sarcasm got lost.  If politicians get involved one law will lead to another and then another.  Soon schools will be surrounded by moats, have parapets and towers with machine guns.  Do we want to live in a world like that...akin to TSA agents on steroids protecting the "lil chillun" from evil...too many Americans already are willing to cede their rights to emotions of the moment (and have to the government on other issues) to implement ideas which solve little but cost much.  That's the way I feel about the armed guard "solution".

What happens if a guarded school suffers another tragedy...do we then do retinal scans...maybe blood tests before allowing anyone access to the armed fortress we now call a school.  And do we run "clearance" checks on all current and future school employees to eliminate those that may be or become dangerous insiders?  Me thinks armed camps masquerading as schools is just a little extreme and fails to address the larger problem.