The Haley2024 CRA Structure

The Haley2024 plan is for CRA’s to control all regulations and laws.  Family law Would be one of thirty CRA Sectors.  Roughly a dozen Family Law CRA would make up the Sector.  Every person/ family must become a member of a Family Law CRA.  CRA’s would have to compete for everyone’s business of the service of family law. 

Blog

In order for those people wishing to live within regulations consistent with Judeo-Christian values, people must allow others the same freedom to live under their preferred value system.  About a dozen choices of Family Law CRA’s where members vote on the leadership of their CRA gives many options for every citizen. 

​A family (father, mother, and minor children) would have to be within the same CRA.  There could be some reasonable time commitments of a few years to change CRA’s as not to allow people to game the system.

All Family Law CRA’s would have agreements with each other to handle extended family relations that are under different CRA’s.  Eldercare would be an example of these cross CRA issues.  Family Law CRA’s would be important to retirement planning CRA’s as a way of ensuring one does not become a burden to society in their elderly years.   
​

While the vast majority of people and families would have socially acceptable notions of family life and law, there would be a concern of a fringe population of radicals that go beyond what a decent society should allow.  This concern would be mostly taken care of by the fact that every single person, starting at the age of 13, must voluntarily become a member of the CRA under which they live.  Request to immediately leave a CRA that is rated low on morally acceptable standards would be granted by the CRA Sector Board quicker than someone trying to game the system.

The Family Law Rating System could put a Rating Floor on Family Law CRA’s with a 70% vote, to ensure nothing approaching severe abuse or ‘honor killings’ would even be entertained.  CRA’s have judicial authority; however, the harshness of the punishments will be limited by a Rating Floor.  Teenagers would start to incrementally increase their authority to change their CRA from their parents if they demonstrate a fundamental difference in values.  

Most Family Law is currently at the state and local levels.  Therefore, there are 50 sets of regulations at the state level and roughly 89,004 local governments.  In America, we are used to many different regulatory districts; however, someone should not have to move to a different city or state to switch Family Law jurisdictions.

Instead of paying taxes for the government to administer Family Law, every person must pay their membership fee to their Family Law CRA.   Foster Care would be addressed in Family Law CRA’s.  It is likely that God-Parent agreements would be a stronger legal commitment. 
​

Many of the Family Law CRA’s would likely team up with Religious CRA’s, Assessor Organization CRA’s, and Charity CRA’s.  The Charity Economy would likely play a role in most difficult cases.  If a citizen has little to no family to rely on, Family Law CRA’s conceivably will group similarly situated citizens together in an all-party agreement.  A CRA could arrange 10 willing participants families together in agreement that all elderly members in these families will be cared for in the case of the death of one or more the adult children.          

One of the positive features of the CRA structure is the Rating System.  Every Family Law CRA would put out its philosophy, its regulations, its results, and its ratings.  Every citizen will have to live with the good and bad consequences of the CRA they choose.  It is doubtful that any authority will be given to representatives at the CRA Sector Board level. 

The Rating System representatives would have original authority to set Rating Floors with a 70% vote to stop abuse.  However, the natural desire to switch to a higher rated CRA would likely handle the vast majority of issues.