According to the Constitution, a president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The object of this post is not to argue the chances of a successful impeachment of President Obama. Success being defined as articles of impeachment being passed by the House of Representatives, those articles being prosecuted by the Senate of the United States, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court finding in favor of that prosecution. That scenario has as much chance of becoming reality as Joe Biden has of getting a clue. No, my contention is that even with a snowball's chance in hell of success, Republicants should attempt it, if for no other reason than to make a stand for liberty and against tyranny. The process would also slow down the implementation of President Obama's radical agenda.
Actually, the Republicants should have challenged President Obama on legal grounds from the start of his presidency. The General Motors bailout, which included a violation of contract law with the federal government transferring equity from legitimate bondholders to the president's union buddies, was a blatant violation of the constitutional mandate of that law. I think that a president's violation of 200 years of civil law qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President repeated the same behavior with his numerous programs to bailout mortgage borrowers who were in default, or in danger of being in default, on their home loans. He placed the federal government in the role of unilateral modifier of private contracts between lenders and borrowers.
President Obama also committed fraud when his administration cut and pasted the signatures of experts they hired to assess the effects of shutting down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill. The experts' original report did not support the administration's desire to shut down the rigs, so they pasted the signatures from the original study to their own that did support it. To add fuel to the fire of lawlessness and deceit, President Obama blatantly disobeyed two different federal Judges' orders not to shut down the rigs. I think that behavior qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
And then there is ObamaCare, which in its passing alone qualified for the most egregious forms of bribery, graft, and corruption. But the almost two dozen ad hoc changes to the law by the president without the support of congress, certainly qualifies for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Maybe the American people have been so dumbed down by the deliberate conspiracy of the Left with the U.S. education system over the last 5 decades, that they do not realize that the constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws, not write them on the fly to support his political agenda.
Even with the preceding evidence against President Obama in favor of impeachment, the piece de resistance is his conspiring with a foreign leader against the interests of the United States. The conspiracy happened prior to the 2012 presidential election when he told then Russian president Medveded to transmit to Vladimir Putin that he, Obama, would have more "flexibility" once he was safely reelected. The comment was picked up when President Obama thought he was off-mic. If conspiring against your own country with a foreign leader does not qualify for "high crimes and misdemeanors," well then I just do not know what does.
There are many more examples of the complete lawlessness of this president that would certainly qualify him for impeachment. The ones mentioned here are only seasoning to the main course of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If the Republicants do not mount an articulate and reasoned prosecution of Barack Obama's deliberate assault on the United States Constitution, then history will judge them to be complicit in the cowardly act of dismantling liberty for future generations.