The case california 1979 reads "the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right"That proves my point: the folks you are listening to use cases that have nothing to do with driver's licensing, rip out a statement from the case that they think is helpful, and then misapply it to say that the case means a state cannot require a driver's license. At the same time, they completely ignore the cases that do directly address driver licensing. In California, there are cases where the power of the state to require driver licensing has been directly addressed and they all say the state has that power.
A recent appeals court decision affirms that: In summary, we conclude that California's statutes requiring (1) the registration of automobiles and trucks and (2) driver's licenses for persons who are in actual physical control of a car or truck moving on California's streets and highways do not unreasonably burden the right to travel and, therefore, do not violate the state or federal Constitution. Halajian v. D & B Towing, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1, 1314, 146 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646, 65455 (2012).
So there you have it: the appeals court specifically stated that the requirement to have a driver's license does NOT infringe on the right to travel. As that case is after the one you cited and is the more specific case on the issue, it makes the case you cited worthless.
So why did you provide me a case that has nothing to do with driver's licensing for the idea that a driver's license would infringe on the right to travel and didn't bother to address the more recent case that is directly on point and that expressly holds that driver's licensing laws do not violate the constitutional right to travel? My guess is that you have not researched the law on this yourself and are just parroting what those web sites you've been reading have been feeding you. Those sites have awful legal analysis, and the discussion above concerning the case you cited perfectly illustrates why they are bad. The "SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN" upon which you are relying is simply bad all the way around. The author of it isn't a lawyer and he clearly has no business trying to offer a legal analysis to anyone. Either he is incompetent in legal research or he is attempting to deliberately mislead people, or perhaps a bit of both.
Cant wait to see how you twist this one to fit your agenda