DDJ 55. 含德之厚，比于赤子

第五十五章
[原文]

含德之厚，比于赤子。毒虫①不螫②，猛兽不据③,攫鸟④不搏⑤。骨弱筋柔而握固。未知牝牡之合而朘作⑥，精之至也。终日号而不嗄⑦，和之至也。知和曰"常"⑧，知常曰"明"，益生⑨曰祥⑩，心使气曰强⑾。物壮⑿则老，谓之不道，不道早已。

[译文]

道德涵养浑厚的人，就好比初生的婴孩。毒虫不螫他，猛兽不伤害他，凶恶的鸟不搏击他。他的筋骨柔弱，但拳头却握得很牢固。他虽然不知道男女的交合之事，但他的小生殖器却勃然举起，这是因为精气充沛的缘故。他整天啼哭，但嗓子却不会沙哑，这是因为和气纯厚的缘故。认识淳和的道理叫做“常”，知道“常”的叫做“明”。贪生纵欲就会遭殃，欲念主使精气就叫做逞强。事物过于壮盛了就会变衰老，这就叫不合于“道”，不遵守常道就会很快地死亡。

http://www.daodejing.org/55.html

老子被隔壁赤子哭得睡不着，静静等待赤子声”嗄“。这个时候另外暴懆的邻居闹上门来。正要抓起小宝宝教训，小宝宝嘘嘘了。 于是老子说了这一段。  前面说过“圣人常善救人,而无弃人。 ” 不轻易抛弃人，不轻易放弃信念。 为什么呢？ 所有人都是“赤子”出身，大部分还经历过漫长的调皮捣蛋，人嫌狗不理的童年。等到我们有点人模样的时候，我们已经开始衰老。

孙叔敖，司马光都像是天生“善救人”的典范。 这种考试，我等俗人可能不及格。 所以道德经指条明路，就是“赤子之心”，不忘初衷，及格不算太难。 与俗人共勉。

*************Constitution *************

 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 4



Combined reading with the earlier clauses in Article I.

I.2.5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

I.3.6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

I.3.7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment

Quote from above article:  Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does. The issue was revisited at the time of the Clinton impeachment, when those who sought to remove the President from office, basing their arguments principally on the English experience and The Federalist No. 64, claimed that a President could be removed for any misconduct that indicated that he did not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption. As James Iredell (later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) opined in the North Carolina ratifying convention, impeachment should be used to remedy harm "arising from acts of great injury to the community."

On the other hand, some have argued that a President should not be impeached unless he has actually engaged in a major abuse of power flowing from his office as President (although judges, who serve during "good behavior," have been impeached for conduct occurring outside of their official duties). In the end, because it is unlikely that a Court would ever exercise judicial review over impeachment and removal proceedings, the definitional responsibility to carry them out with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Any foundational document of reasonable longevity, its writers having all passed away, its entire world having faded into dusty books, the meaning of its words having evolved, only its hallos continue to influence the powers that be; some people will claim to be master interpreter of it, others will resign to be ignorant slaves and let others interpret for them.  Constitution has two big schools of thoughts:  Originalists and NonOriginalists.  

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html

There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law.  There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions.  Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced.  Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness.  Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called "originalists."  Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called "non-originalists."  In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain "fundamental rights" that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution. 

老子读宪法，不知道站哪边呢？

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/here-are-the-key-decisions-still-to-come-from-the-supreme-court/article/2622292