modifying the constitution, in 2 ways formal amendment, informal amendment which is best?

Answer 1

There are really only formal amendments, as defined in Article V.

I guess you can consider US Supreme Court holdings, which interpret provisions of the Constitution, to be informal where they are not reflected in the actual text. But that's not really an amendment.

Example. The Constitution by its text does not require Miranda warnings, nor does it require exclusion of evidence that is illegally obtained. Both of those are the result of Supreme Court holdings, based on the intent of the requirements and the means by which the explicity provisions of the text can be enforced in real life.

Do you consider those interpretations or informal amendments?

Answer 2

The formal amendment would be better.

The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would need to be made as time went by. They recommended that the Constitution be revisited every 20 years to review.

Answer 3

Coragryph's answer is the start of a good answer, but he forgot to mention the SC's more serious misdeeds.

For example, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and many of the precedents which those two cases relied on.

And yes, only the formal system is legitimate, which means that it is best.

Answer 4

Only the formal complies with the Constitution. Therefore it is best.