The recent impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives at one point had a law professor attempt to be humorous by making an analogy between the U.S. Constitutional prohibition on the granting of titles of nobility and President Trump calling his son “Barron”. This appeared to have been a play on the old “baron” title of nobility. Lawyers in general and law professors in particular have no sense of humor as this incident shows. However, it also further shows how out of touch with reality professors of law actually are. The U.S. may not have any formal or explicit granting of titles of nobility but we do have hidden or implicit ones: the most obvious of which is the title of Judge of the United States Supreme Court.
The concept of the Divine Right of Kings became popular during a short period in the Renaissance before the American Revolution. It was this concept and the power of the nobility who promoted it that led to the disapproval of titles of nobility by the Founders and their prohibition of them in the U.S. Constitution. However for the thousand years of the Middle Ages between the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance, the relationship between the nobility and the lower classes was not as bad as present propaganda presents it and was most definitely better than the present relationship between the ruling class Supremes and anyone not within the Outer and Inner Party circles of the U.S. government. The Medieval relationship was not based on any divine right or even natural right but based on contract. As is well known, Medieval serfs and commoners were held to the land and were required by the power of law to provide their services and products for the noble who owned the land. However, what is ignored by this propaganda is that the nobility was also tied to the land by their reciprocal duty to defend the land and to assure it was economically productive for the serfs and commoners. If either side breached this obligation, they could be punished by violence. Just as Roman emperors were routinely and often assassinated when they were incompetent at their duties, the nobility of the Middle Ages knew they were asking for revolt and assassination when they failed in their duties to protect the land and assure its prosperity. The old school nobility of the Middle Ages had reciprocal duties and obligations with those they governed. When the Divine Right of Kings concept developed to tip the balance greatly in favor of the nobility, consistent with the thousand years of reciprocity, revolutions began to occur including ours and here we are.
Though modern political theory has and loves aesthetic references to a social contract between the governed and those who govern, modern government is not based on any contractual concepts of duty and obligation but upon abstract principles of legal duty and legal obligation imposed by law. Since these principles are developed by those in power, as can be expected they are big on legal duty by the governed toward the government and small on legal obligation by the government to the governed. Other than the requirement to go through elections every few years in which the candidates are limited to the dumb and the dumber, the government has no obligations that can be enforced by the governed against it without its consent and assistance. The days of armed revolution against the government are gone thanks to the power of a monopoly on violence Technology Society grants to the law as the Outer Party enforcing the needs of the Inner Party. Thus we have a modern new school nobility who are big on legal duties and obligations for all but themselves.
The best example of this modern nobility are the Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court. Only a small group are eligible for this title: attorneys who have never practiced and thus have never made enemies; law students who were so narrow minded, lacking in rationality and imagination, and outright stupid that they actually had to go to class for three years so as to appear intelligent; government employees with political connections; moral busy bodies who see the world as something that needs to be reformed in their image; and believers in nothing but their own career and self-centered needs for notoriety and a good reputation thus who are barred from believing in anything that would threaten their career or well-marketed good reputation. In short, unlike old school nobility who had to have some courage to provide a defense for their lands, judicial nominees are cowards who want the power of being political or military royalty but without the courage to run for actual political or military office. Once appointed to the noble title of Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, these cowards have life tenure with complete immunity for their actions; the power to overthrow legally both United States political and cultural power as they deem fit in their image; and a guaranteed millionaire status consisting of government pay plus profits from books and other publications. In return, what obligations do they have? None.
In the Supremes will have a modern Divine Right of Kings, the divinity consists of their being gods and kings in the modern religion called the law. What is the opposition to this divinity? That is the problem; there is no opposition. Even the old school Divine Right of Kings had opposition from the Western Church as the source of that Divine Right and thus as its equal in power. Now, even the Western Church has sold out to the so-called rule of law which is simply mob rule by the mob with a monopoly on violence. For more detail please see The Law Illusion.