Remembering that Tories existed in the colonies (i.e. a minority that remained loyal to the crown of England), and yet that the sent representatives of each colony made agreements that were binding to the entire colony (including Tories), and brought each colony into armed conflict with England ... it is obvious that Spooner's premise is false. The 'majority' reps of the colonies ruled over the 'minority' wishes of the Tories in attending these conventions and moving forward in resistance. Thus it is implied by their very attendance that some level of majority rule over a minority is condoned by the founding fathers. And further demonstrated in the actions resulting from the conventions, which placed the entire represented colony into conflict. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Spooner's premise ... but his example to authenticate does not work ... -- Tru, Colorado