I can see your reasoning, yet Paul didn't use the word for "Kings" (basileus) rather we get the expression "higher powers" or 'exousiais huperechousais' in Romans 13, and in Titus 3:1 the words are "to principalities" (archais), "to obey magistrates" (peitharchein) and powers ('exousiais').
But lets entertain your idea for just this moment. If the command was to obey Kings yet for 'elected' officials any sort of respect or obedience was optional, could we argue that the Founding Fathers were in disobedience when they fought for separation yet the antebellum South was not?
At what level of government or bureaucracy do we tell the office-holder to get lost? Are you willing to test that theory at a routine traffic stop?
You would support the government criminalizing "one hot meal and one night's shelter"? How about just offering them Holy Communion during service - would you support the government's right to criminalize that too?
**could we argue that the Founding Fathers were in disobedience when they fought for separation**
The king of England thought so. However, laws were quickly established in the colonies.
I have in my possession a book "York County, Virginia Records 1659-1662" and the first entry reads:
At a Court Held for York County, August 24, 1659
Present: Lt. Coll. William Barbar, Mr. Wiliam Hay, Mr.Robert Bourne, Mr. Edmond Pevesey, Mr.Rog. Baldrey
It is ordered that Mr. Nathaniel Bacon, Administrator of Mrs. Jane Harman, dec'd, be paid 300 lbs tobacco due by bill, out of the estate of John Claxon, dec'd.
down on the same page:
In the difference between Mr.Francis Wheeler, plt, and Mr. Robert Vaulx, deft., concerning a skiff borrowed of Mr. Wheeler, it is ordered (said skiff appearing to be made unusable by Mr. Vaulx) that he pay L 5 (£5) for said boat.