One idea I've been toying with (meaning I find it interesting, but I'm not so sure about it just also of seperation of church and society. I start this thought off by thinking of what the framers were trying to avoid (government control of religion), and then thinking about what role religion played in the lives of the framers. Religion was not the complete foundation of society back then, but I think it is safe to say that it was a cornerstone at the very least. Also, I think that religion might have had many of the same implications for the framers as general society has for us.
With that set, the idea is that perhaps government should stay out of defining social norms/values like we are tending to do more and more in the past fifty years or more. Some examples of this are --
People with the notion that if something isn't against the law it's OK to do.
Pornography. (Explotation of men and women) Legally alright if you're the right age. Left up to society to manage.
Gambling... left up to society to manage, but is bad for many people and good for only a few... which is almost a definition of social ill.
Certain drugs. (Government fights this. Why not just leave it to society? Cigarette smokers seem to be losing ground, no?)
Homosexuality -- if left up to society, this may have never become so accepted.
These examples are all examples of the government playing one side or the other on an issue. I think that some issues should be decided and enforced by the government and some should probably just be left up to social pressure.
Like I said, I've just been toying with this idea. It's obviously not completely thought out and well argued, but I think that leaving certain issues up to social control might benefit the government and society, while letting the government take on some of the issues currently under social control might help society as well. The challenge is deciding/knowing which issue should belong to which enforcement authority.