[heyday]

DUE PROCESS
“The essential elements of due process of law are.. Notice and The Opportunity to defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 U. S. 427 (1901).
Yet, not one individual has ever been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel by automobile on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary government deprivation on Liberty.
“There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty...” Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885); Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 1l8 U.S. 356 (1886).
and...
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent vs. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action in law would be the appropriate remedy (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected for all.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 (1819), in which he declared that due process means “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020 (1910); Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that “no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,” until he has been duly summoned to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such summons and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is unfairly administered. (12 Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, p.269.)
Note: This sounds tike the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.”

The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
“The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized...”
and...
“Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the highways...” Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the restrictions placed upon government by and through the several constitutions.
That legal proposition may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, clearly demonstrated that even this weak defense of the state’s actions must fail.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491 (1966).
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.”

If anyone noticed my post analysis of a right to travel case posted herein the case of FROST v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA 271 U.S. 583 (1926) SCOTUS held that that it was not within the power of the state to grant a privilege which required the relinquishment of a constitutional right.

But, it may not be advisable to quote that case here ;)