Prerogative According to Locke

"Undoubted prerogative" of a trusted executive supersedes incomplete law, while also possessing the capacity to break the law, so to speak, under circumstances in which a commonwealth is benefited more so than if the current legislation were strictly adhered to, or not circumvented on account of unpleasant extenuating factors. Seeing as how someone appointed executive would also play a significant, if not foremost role in the legislative realm, such an individual of externally-concurred worthiness would presumably possess superior understanding, and ideally perfect knowledge, of the standing code of laws.
Moreover, if the execution of prerogative leads to tyrannical actions as perceived by the commonwealth in general, the source of such action (viz., the one in executive power) will be abundantly obvious to the populace, and thereby subject to dissolution. While scenarios of this nature arose in paternal, monarchical systems throughout England in which certain princes would unjustly exercise their inherited power of prerogative (which had previously caused no noteworthy harm to the commonwealth), the odds of discerning a tyrant in the executive position would be considerably higher, supposing Locke's design were to bear fruition, resulting from the lack of hereditary, monarchical prerogative that very well might have been passed along to the wrong hands.
Namely, a monarchical structure's recipient of prerogative by virtue of nothing more than accident of birth is illogically presupposed to possess the faculties required for justly administering their bequeathed power, whereas the commonwealth according to Locke's design would function in superior fashion on account of the lack of familial prejudices, insofar as a collection of members within the legislative body, in addition to adult citizens comprising the commonwealth in general, are granted prerogative in their own right to decide on the appointment of an individual to the most elite political standing. Ideally, a decision of such magnitude would be arrived at via merit-based proof of excellence exhibited by such an individual as witnessed by the populace in accord with the success of their political career.
Ergo, once a prerogative (or action unencumbered by rules) has manifested itself in a manner beyond the code of laws that has, per unanimous consent, benefited the commonwealth, formal laws corresponding to such action ought to be officially codified for the sake of future leaders of the government, as well as for the citizenry insofar as confusion regarding the enactment of certain dubious prerogatives can be understood on account of their codification that resulted from past accomplishments that occurred outside the realm of codified law. This essential component of legislation also simplifies the capacity to determine whether or not such action transformed from prerogative into law must be revoked; for amendments of a manner borne from prerogative restrict the arbitrary expansiveness of an executive's scope within which they claim to be acting in the best interests of the people, and therefore justifiable prerogative. However, if such an individual were to recklessly bypass the laws in obvious fashion prior to executing prerogative irresponsibly, then the unworthiness of that individual would be wholly apparent, whereby a new executive may be appointed once the current, incompetent executive has been dissolved.