Understood and I was not attempting to advocate that you can contract for literally anything you wish. Although the particular example you selected would be fodder for a spirited debate with any real libertarian in the room..... point is I would not use that example and expect to remain on rock solid ground, but it wasn't my point any way. My point is that when you apply for a "license" you are voluntarily agreeing that the other party has both the authority and the power to dictate the rules under which that license is held and the procedures in play when certain circumstances are presented.
To voluntarily accept a contract and avail yourself of any associated benefits under that contract very quickly erode any legal right you may have to challenge that contract and unless there is some other factor to come into play, it's not even a Constitutional issue.
The difference, of course, is that under common law the courts can, do and should make a distinction between the relative powers of the contracting parties.
There is a question about whether there can be any sort of contractual relationship (in the civil sense) between a state and an individual. All states recognize that a contract signed under duress is voidable. Yet ANY contract undertaken with a state is made under duress (why else sign a contract with a state?).
And to go back to my original point, no private contractant could, under breach of contract, throw you in jail and take away your rights as a citizen. Only a state can do that.