I'm fairly convinced that Trump's actions are no different than the other national emergencies--as far as the language of the statute is concerned, that is.
If it were me, i would say that few to none of the prior emergencies qualify. At one point, the statute says, "When the President declares a national emergency, or the Congress declares war..." That would seem to argue that a presidentially declared emergency must be on par with war. But, the statute is very open ended...it does not define emergency. And, no one before now has interpreted it strictly to be a true emergency like war.
So, Congress opened the door and is allowing POTUS to drive a Mac truck through it...and they now need a 2/3 majority to take back what they granted with a simple majority...and no POTUS will surrender the power, so the veto override is necessary.
Frankly, this all seems unconstitutional to me (on the basis that Congress cannot surrender powers to the president without a constitutional amendment), but I don't think you can argue that Trump's action is uniquely unconstitutional and the other actions of other presidents are fine and dandy. In fact, Trump's may be more justifiable than some of the others as a real emergency (relatively speaking only, that is).
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg1255.pdf