They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.
The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.
It's less a legal provision than a consequence of humans being the interface of the law. So while there is, in theory, a duty to disobey, there is also a presumption of lawfulness of orders [1][2].
[1] https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawf...
[2] https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey...
Interestingly the oath for enlisted does include a section on obeying the President, subject to the military Code.
And while on the face of it, this video would appear to jump headlong into a hot button political discussion... it's actually very calm, collected, and appears to be striving to provide an objective analysis from a military perspective about just these issues.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/07/12/what-happens-...
There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.
