It's not only Paul's "non-mainstream ideas" that deem him less than suitable for the highest political office, but his quirkiness. The guy presents himself on camera as a stereotypical philosophical tinkerer (with attendant twitches) accustomed to quiet rooms safely hidden from life's hustle and bustle. The general populace demands a person of estimable aplomb whose temper appears steady, unshakable.
More like a framework that is attempted continually to be codified. Our democratic experiment marches on with that document in flux of change and interpretation with each step.
Your statement is bound to find support superficially, as most grandiose generalized campaign pronouncements. But, lacking specificity, it's a hollow parade float without mooring. It is in the interpretation where the whole of the matter resides.