Yes, just like I said: "which would ironically involve the same number of votes as keeping the law but slapping down Trump's particular usage of it." Originall

Yes, just like I said: "which would ironically involve the same number of votes as keeping the law but slapping down Trump's particular usage of it." Originally it wasn't veto-able (only needed a Concurrent Resolution of 50% in each house, no Presidential signature) but the Supreme Court ruled that part unconstitutional in the early 80s.