The wisdom of crowds works doesn't have anything to do with having experts.
You are right that the wisdom of crowds does not come from having experts. The wisdom of crowds comes from having a lot of people who all have a little bit of knowledge relevant to the subject. Some of that knowledge might be something that you would not necessarily think was relevant, but when applied as a filter on the other knowledge present produces a result much more accurate than an expert on the subject would ever produce.
The results of this study are not new. Back in the lat 70s, early 80s, there was a study which showed that a group of people with no particular expertise on the subject will reach a better decision than an individual expert on the subject as long as certain criteria are met in the group discussion. The most important criteria that needs to be met is that the groups deliberations must be such that the individual charisma of each person must not be allowed to influence the group discussion. My understanding is that they accomplished this by having all of the discussion occur in anonymous text (such as if all of the comments on slashdot were from Anonymous Coward).
Constitution clearly states that the arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional is the supreme court
Actually, the Constitution at NO place states, clearly, or otherwise, that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. That is a role which the Supreme Court assigned to itself.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard