That would be a good first case for the new Supreme Court to decide. My guess would be no, since the Court would otherwise have an overwhelming number of challenged decisions to make on Day One of the "new" United States. Rather than do that, I think the country would opt to continue with the laws and decisions as they had previously been.
Additionally, if the existing Constitution were offered up, it would mean by definition that the Constitutional Convention had decided not to change anything.
If, however, a single word of the Constitution were changed, then yes, we'd be starting from scratch with a Constitution requiring literal interpretation. All the existing "chips" (as you described them) would have to be re-thought. Words have consequences upon which houses of cards are often built. Change ANYTHING, and the entire structure of court-rulings and interpretations would need new consideration.
So, why is it that this question was routed to me? Did I say something that got you to wondering?
| 
