No I'm sorry you are mistaken. The Enacting Clause must be on the FACE of every law! Publishing laws without the proper legislative requirements makes them only a "guideline for a suggestion of quality".
Please search your local law library and provide to your own eyes the enacting clause for the laws you so desperately cling too. Before you claim they exist. No, most people do not believe as I, but the literal meaning of laws is all we have.
You're more confused than I thought. Let's start at the beginning.
A law is created when the legislature passes a bill, and the bill gets signed by the governor.
Here's what a bill looks like: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_1_bill_20081201_introduced.pdf
Scroll to page 2 of the PDF, and notice the language "
The People of the State of California do enact as follows:" That is the enacting clause, and it is on every single bill that gets signed into law. The original signed bill (which is now a law), with the enacting clause on its face, then gets stored. You should be able to get a copy of the signed bill, with the enacting clause on its face, if you visit the clerk's office of wherever it's stored in Sacramento.
Enter the book publisher: A publishing company says to itself "driving to the Sacramento to get copies of individual laws sure is a pain in the butt for lawyers and for the public. If we drive to Sacramento and copy all the laws ourselves, and then put them in a book, I bet we can sell the books for a profit! But let's cut out all the boring stuff like the enacting clause, the governor's signature, and the like. Most people don't care about that stuff."
Is it starting to make sense now?
The facts are: the copyright on the inside cover doesn't say "only the book form", it covers the whole book and all works therein. I'm sorry but it seems that you are defending improper legislative works.
So now that the laws were copied, edited, and arranged in a book, the publisher says to itself "wow, copying, editing and arranging all those laws sure was time consuming and expensive. What if our competitor decides to publish a similar book, but instead of spending the time and money to copy all the laws in Sacramento, it decides to save money by copying them straight out of our book? That's not fair!"
The publisher's attorney then says "hey guys, although you can't copyright the laws themselves, you can copyright the compilation of laws in your book. If you do that, then it will be illegal for the other company to copy your book. They'll have to do their own leg work just like you did." The publisher is ecstatic, but asks "if we copyright the book, will that wrongfully imply that we're copyrighting everything, including the laws themselves?" The lawyer says "no, the copyright law specifically says that it does not imply that everything is copyrighted. just read the law:"
§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
And the publisher lived happily ever after.
The end.
.