The rule of 5 - to use it or not?

Question

The rule of 3 (the rule of 5 in the new c++ standard) states :

If you need to explicitly declare either the destructor, copy constructor or copy assignment operator yourself, you probably need to explicitly declare all three of them.

But, on the other hand, the Martin's "Clean Code" advises to remove all empty constructors and destructors (page 293, G12:Clutter) :

Of what use is a default constructor with no implementation? All it serves to do is clutter up the code with meaningless artifacts.

So, how to handle these two opposite opinions? Should empty constructors/destructors really be implemented?

---

Next example demonstrates exactly what I mean :

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct A
{
    A( const int value ) : v( new int( value ) ) {}
    ~A(){}
    A( const A & other ) : v( new int( *other.v ) ) {}
    A& operator=( const A & other )
    {
        v.reset( new int( *other.v ) );
        return *this;
    }

    std::auto_ptr< int > v;
};
int main()
{
    const A a( 55 );
    std::cout<< "a value = " << *a.v << std::endl;
    A b(a);
    std::cout<< "b value = " << *b.v << std::endl;
    const A c(11);
    std::cout<< "c value = " << *c.v << std::endl;
    b = c;
    std::cout<< "b new value = " << *b.v << std::endl;
}

Compiles fine using g++ 4.6.1 with :

g++ -std=c++0x -Wall -Wextra -pedantic example.cpp

The destructor for struct A is empty, and not really needed. So, should it be there, or should it be removed?