I don’t consider that a problem, insofar as you don’t appear to understand the historical context underpinning his argument.
John Adams wasn’t arguing that the Constitution was tailor-made to be used as a blunt instrument to squeeze morality out of the People, independent of the already-existing morality of the People. It is precisely that type of “top-down” moral tyranny that the early colonists escaped.
What Adams meant was that a Constitution that assigned limited powers to government could only function adequately where a People had the ability to exercise self-restraint, self-control, and self-discipline. In the absence of such a People, only a tyrannical government (an absolute monarchy, a dictatorship a la Cromwell) could maintain law and order.
You can use the Constitution to impose a form of “moral socialism” on the People, but such would not be a Constitutional Republic as defined by our Founding Fathers. On the other hand, you can have a Constitutional Republic where the boundaries imposed on government are jealously maintained, but you would need to give up using the State to enforce your vision of a moral utopia.
Pick up Levin's new book. Then get back to me.