Since it seems this thread may go on for a while, here's something from a site that always has thought provoking and informative content.
I'll see your Rights of the States and raise you some foundational Mayhew - where the entire notion of rights and resistance to tyranny was first waged in the pulpits in the 1750's and set the stage for the war of Independence that followed this awakening.
I find the alliterations enlightening and as appropriate to what is currently going on now, as it was when he gave this sermon back in January, 1750.
Jonathan Mayhew "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers"...But if magistrates are unrighteous; if they are respecters of persons; if they are partial in their administration of justice; then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid, as those that do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious. So that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated. And what reason is there for submitting to that government, which does by no means answer the design of government? Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
...If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish,
we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle's argument in this passage.
...
That no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly, if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion, because it is a gross perversion and corruption…
All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void: And therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime....Whoever considers the nature of civil government must, indeed, be sensible that a great degree of implicit confidence, must unavoidably be placed in those that bear rule: this is implied in the very notion of authority's being originally a trust, committed by the people, to those who are vested with it, as all just and righteous authority is; all besides, is mere lawless force and usurpation; neither God nor nature, having given any man a right of dominion over any society, independently of that society's approbation, and consent to be governed by him--
Now as all men are fallible, it cannot be supposed that the public affairs of any state, should be always administered in the best manner possible, even by persons of the greatest wisdom and integrity. Nor is it sufficient to legitimate disobedience to the higher powers that they are not so administered; or that they are, in some instances, very ill-managed; for upon this principle, it is scarcely supposeable that any government at all could be supported, or subsist. Such a principle manifestly tends to the dissolution of government: and to throw all things into confusion and anarchy.--But it is equally evident, upon the other hand, that those in authority may abuse their trust and power to such a degree, that neither the law of reason, nor of religion, requires, that any obedience or submission should be paid to them: but, on the contrary, that they should be totally discarded; and the authority which they were before vested with, transferred to others, who may exercise it more to those good purposes for which it is given.
...
As soon as the prince sets himself up above law, he loses the king in the tyrant. He does, to all intents and purposes, unking himself by acting out of and beyond that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in; and in such cases he has no more right to be obeyed than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subjects' obligation to allegiance then ceases of course: and to resist him is no more rebellion, than to resist any foreign invader.
***
Given what Mayhew preached, (his sermons were a key influence upon men like Franklin and Jefferson), since this current government has 'unkinged itself' and thus has no moral authority whatsoever - we the people have NO MORAL OBLIGATION to submit to their laws or rules, rather we have an obligation to resist for the purpose of preserving those rights that are institutionally being trampled.
Electing one tyrant over another is not an option either, for we are only to support those who have demonstrated that they will rule within the fear of God and who have demonstrated they are consistent with the obedience to the Commands of the Lord.
Neither 'candidate' running in the two major parties of the oligarchy meet the minimal requirements for our support. As Mayhew would say - voting for them would be akin to voting for devils.
