Whatever the paraphrase, the passage describes a “prince” who is correctly distinguishing good from evil; what is good and what is evil is explained in terms of the Ten commandments later in the chapter. So, the implication is that if perchance a prince does not correctly differentiate good works from evil works (for example, legalizes murder), then that is not the prince St. Paul is talking about and naturally he is not to be obeyed.
Recall, for example, that Sts Peter and John refused to obey the Sanhedrin (Acts 4).
Alex, you have it all backwards. In that case the prince would have no authority. Since all authority is given by God, authority cannot be evil; what is evil, according to +Paul, is disobeying any authority. Otherwise, we would admit that the devil has authority and that he is competing with God.
Recall, for example, that Sts Peter and John refused to obey the Sanhedrin (Acts 4).
+Paul was preaching his gospel, remember? What does that have to do with +Peter and +John?