The purpose of government in a Democratic Republic is to perform "collective action", those things we are unable to do alone. Our Constitutional Republic limits those areas of action within the purview of the Federal Government. All other areas are reserved to the States and the People. So, within the appropriate areas and at the proper levels, our governments perform those collective actions we want performed. However, those actions are at the expense of taxpayers. So, they must be performed as efficiently and economically as possible.
Overhead and long-term recurring costs should be minimized, which lowers the cost of government to taxpayers. As well, government employment with its attached costs of benefits and retirement should be limited to only essential personnel. All other functions should be outsourced to third-parties which must bid for the contract at regular intervals, to further reduce costs to the taxpayers.
More money in the hands of those who produce it, and less in those who tend to waste it would definitely be a good selling point for Conservatives. However, it's just a start. We must remember to always reduce government to the smallest possible size regardless of cost.

What seems to be forgotten is that the Framers of the Constitution did not write the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, at the Constitutional Convention. A "Bill of Rights" was proposed during the debates over the Constitution's passage in the various States. The "Federalists" argued that it was unnecessary, as the government constructed under the Constitution had strictly enumerated powers. The "Anti-Federalists" argued that there were not enough protections of Liberty included in the document. The proposal to amend the Constitution to include a "Bill of Rights", after its eventual ratification by the requisite number of States, was seen as a compromise by many on both sides.
The "Bill of Rights" originally included twelve proposed amendments. These twelve proposed amendments were written and debated during the First Congress of the Federal Government under our current Constitution. The debates are part of the Congressional Record, in both the House and the Senate. We know exactly the meaning of each of these amendments as they were proposed, debated in committee, changed, debated on the floor of each House, and, finally, voted for in both Houses. Of those twelve proposed amendments, only ten were eventually passed by enough States' legislatures to be included in the "Bill of Rights."
Any jurist or Constitutional "scholar" claiming that we don't know the "true" or "original" meaning of any aspect of our Constitution, and, therefore, must rely on some "imputed" knowledge or empathy to translate its "unknowable" hieroglyphics is either a fool or a liar. I'll betting on the latter, but it's probably both.

Direct election of Senators upset the delicate balance created by the Framers. When people think of the Constitutional Balance of Power, they automatically assume it was about the branches of the federal government. However, it was also the Federal government versus the States' governments. The States were the original governing entities, and they created the federal government.
The Senate's purpose was to be the States' House, to counter the People's House. Passage of the 17th Amendment changed the "States' House" into the "People from the States' House." There is more than a rhetorical difference inherent in these designations. The Senate was to protect the interests of the States' governments. Instead it has become merely another body representative of the people.
The Framers' intentions included preserving the authority of the States' governments. If the States were to become simply administrative agencies of the federal government, the Framers would have created a unicameral legislature. The Senate, as originally intended, has ceased to exist and is superfluous to the current function of government. The post-17th Amendment Senate is like your second kidney: it's nice to have and it functions, but it's really unnecessary.
Does anyone believe the Senate, as originally constituted, would have allowed the transfer of power from the States' governments to the Federal government? The legislatures would have never elected someone whose interests aligned more with the feds than with theirs, nor would they have re-elected someone who willingly gave away State authority.
The States should have known better than to allow passage of this amendment. It's existence has led us directly to our current Constitutional imbalance.
The 17th Amendment's anniversary is yet another sad day in our history.

The President only wants to set an example for how he wants the rest of us to bend over... and take it.

Steven, once again both funny and poignant.

The basic problem with legal marriage, or any doppelganger, for any combination other than one man and one woman is reproduction. The rational for marriage is children, not romantic love.

Pair-bonded couples with children (a family) predate civilization, and are the basis for society. Over time civilization built up around the family and formalized marriage in recognition of its essential function. All changes undermining marriage and the family have undermined society as a whole.

Most automatic benefits of marriage (excluding reproductive and custody issues) can be obtained by other than married couples by other legal instruments (i.e. wills and trusts, living wills, limited powers of attorney, etc.). Those who truly wish these legal protections may enter into them at any time, if that is what they really seek. However, if what they want is societal recognition of their lifestyle, perhaps they should seek counseling...

Much thanks, Christian.

I first discovered Chris Isaak's music while sitting in a dark movie theater watching David Lynch's "Wild at Heart". On the way home from the movie, I stopped by the music store and purchased the soundtrack. Listening to the CD on the way home and, repeatedly, to Isaak's three songs at home, I kicked myself for not purchasing Isaak's CD's instead (Cage doing Elvis -- not entertainment).

Since then, I've purchased each of Isaak's new CD's as soon as available. I have never been disappointed with his music, just at the recent infrequency of its release.

As to red-blooded males listening to Isaak ... there is no more a target rich environment than a Chris Isaak concert. Take my word. Better yet, go see him for yourself. No regrets.

The need of elitists within our own country to emulate Europe is driven by cultural insecurity. They see the history, architecture, literature, governments, etc. as superior because it is dominated by European elitists. Our economy is meritocratic and our culture is chaotic. Our elitists wish for us to become more like Europe because it concentrates more power in their hands, which is, in their minds, where it belongs.