I would not dare to speak for a consensus- my reading on this is years old- but I think I can say that Beard is still useful but rather dated, certainly not the last word. When Beard published his book the standard narrative was what you could call a Federalist history of the Constitution, and it ran something like this: in the Articles of Confederation period between 1782 and 1787 the United States were in a crisis, with civil unrest ( like Shays' Rebellion) massive foreign debts, inept management of foreign relations and trade, and a dithering government powerless to deal with it. The wise and gifted Founding Framers appeared in Philadelphia in 1787, and with the guidance of Providence created the most amazing and wonderful government the world has ever seen that fixed all that, the end.

Beard was part of a newer generation of scholars who liked science and hard data, and distrusted previous theories, which he felt were based on flimsy rhetoric and imposed upon the real facts, not constructed from real analysis of them. He used data to take issue with the idea of there being a crisis. And, since there was not a crisis, Beard said, the great change of creating a very strong Federal government was not motivated by it. He noted that the Framers had very significant investments in the War debt, and that they were therefore motivated to see that debt paid off by the public, and that some of the cross-linking of powers by the Constitution could also be seen as based on economic concerns. Not, as would have been thought previously, by grand and stirring political vision.

You will often run across the statement that history repeats itself. It's not true. However, you can say that historiography sometimes repeats itself. Historian A does research and in her conclusion makes a general statement based on it. Some time later, Historian B does more research and finds plenty of exceptions to that general statement. Later, historian C considers both, finds some merit in A again, and critiques B. That happened also with Beard: others came along later ( like Forrest McDonald) and disputed his view of economically self-interested Framers (for one thing, only about half of them were holding War bonds. There was also plenty of political motivation going on because the Framers were essentially divvying up, allocating, limiting, a whole new source of power, power over the whole United States) . Then someone came along later ( Robert McGuire) who was able to show that the economic interests of the Framers went far beyond War bonds; so, Beard was maybe on to something. And most all would say that Beard was right about one thing: the idea that the Framers were averting a real crisis in 1787 was greatly over-stated in the 19th c.. The Constitution was not inevitable, there could have been other outcomes in the reform, perhaps a revision of the Articles of Confederation.

But no longer does anybody try to assert all of what Beard asserted. Instead of a broad generalization, there's the more typical conclusion of, well, it's complicated. And this has happened in other cases where historians have tried to link human behavior to their economic interest. For example, in the 1950's there was a lot of debate over the notion that the gentry in 17th c, England had, because of their rising economic status, been motivated to be Roundheads in order to dispute established Royal power. But it now seems to be settled that everybody was everything- nobility were Roundheads or not, commoners Royalists or not. It's complicated.

Yes, it seems like maybe we could have just gone ahead and said that right at the beginning and saved everyone lots of trouble, but historians really do like to come up with answers, and Beard was one who felt that historians should try to provide answers useful in the present. At least, he did at first. Beard was a historian for quite some time, and while he was overly optimistic about the use of scientific method in historical research when he was younger, he seems to have lost it in the last 20 years or so of his life. After observing the war, social upheavals and apparently irrational mass appeal and success of fascism in the 1930's, he began to doubt that people were always rational actors, motivated by sense and self-interest, and so defying simple scientific analysis.

Marcell, D. W. (1969). Charles Beard: Civilization and the Revolt Against Empiricism. American Quarterly, 21(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2710773