Final answer:
Alexander Hamilton used the argument of implied powers from the U.S. Constitution, checks and balances, and the economic self-interest of the elite to counter concerns about the concentration of power in one individual or entity's hands.
Step-by-step explanation:
Alexander Hamilton argued against the fear of placing power in the hands of a single individual or entity, as evidenced by his writings, including Federalist No. 70. Hamilton believed that a strong executive was necessary for effective government, and that checks and balances were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution to prevent abuse of power. He cited implied powers under Article I, Section 8, which gave leeway for measures like his plan to improve public credit and instill European confidence in the U.S. economy.
Furthermore, Hamilton contended that a strong central government that could make decisive actions would not lead to tyranny due to the Constitution's careful allocation of specified powers as well as limitations on government authority. His financial policies were designed to engender loyalty by appealing to the self-interest of the elite, which in turn would have widespread economic benefits. Fisher Ames and other supporters reinforced Hamilton's perspective by supporting the doctrine of implied powers, favoring a practical interpretation of the Constitution to enable government functionality.