Final answer:
Agreeing with Hamilton's viewpoint, a person would believe that the Constitution sufficiently limits the powers of Congress, making a Bill of Rights unnecessary and potentially risky by implying that unlisted rights are unprotected.
Step-by-step explanation:
A person who agreed with Alexander Hamilton's viewpoint in the quote from Federalist No. 84 would argue that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution already provided a limited set of powers to Congress and included checks on those powers. Hamilton believed that listing specific rights could actually lead to the inference that any unlisted rights were not protected, potentially endangering those rights. Furthermore, because the Constitution was designed to regulate broad national political interests, rather than personal concerns, the explicit listing of rights was, in his view, unnecessary and could even be dangerous.
Hamilton and his supporters, like Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry, further argued for the elasticity of constitutional powers, such as those implied in the 'necessary and proper' clause, for the functionality of the government. The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, warned that without a Bill of Rights, the government might overreach its authority. This debate highlighted the ongoing tension between a strong national government and the protection of individual liberties, a discussion that is still relevant in contemporary constitutional law.