I must disagree with the OP's justification:
"this recent push for transparency has ignored government’s central function, to pass and enforce laws."
It is not the government's central function to pass and enforce laws, nor is that the goal that legislators set for themselves.
From a philosophical perspective, the function is to government is to govern. There is no reason that this must necessarily entail laws. In many cases simple speechifying and arbitration might suffice. Very often, it would be more appropriate to repeal a law than to pass a new one. Internal consistency is not required (or is a moot point) if there is no code of laws. And while that seems a huge leap from today's situation, it is in principle a possibility.
From a more practical perspective, the role that our government has taken is to be seen to do something. For example, the CAN-SPAM law certainly involved passing a law. But that law had no basis in reality; it's utterly impractical and unenforceable. Assuming that our legislators aren't stupid, there was never any requirement that this law be used to prosecute spammers. Rather, the intent was to demonstrate to the public that the government was "doing something about the problem". Thus, there was no need to ensure that it was consistent with anything, or even that it had any actual meaning.
Thus, it's perfectly feasible for a functional government to have inconsistency in its legal code.
It is not the government's central function to pass and enforce laws, nor is that the goal that legislators set for themselves.
From a philosophical perspective, the function is to government is to govern. There is no reason that this must necessarily entail laws. In many cases simple speechifying and arbitration might suffice. Very often, it would be more appropriate to repeal a law than to pass a new one. Internal consistency is not required (or is a moot point) if there is no code of laws. And while that seems a huge leap from today's situation, it is in principle a possibility.
From a more practical perspective, the role that our government has taken is to be seen to do something. For example, the CAN-SPAM law certainly involved passing a law. But that law had no basis in reality; it's utterly impractical and unenforceable. Assuming that our legislators aren't stupid, there was never any requirement that this law be used to prosecute spammers. Rather, the intent was to demonstrate to the public that the government was "doing something about the problem". Thus, there was no need to ensure that it was consistent with anything, or even that it had any actual meaning.
Thus, it's perfectly feasible for a functional government to have inconsistency in its legal code.