As for revoking the 19th amendment (women's right to vote), going the easy way here and quoting the Wikipedia article on AC. Wiki can be inaccurate for sure but at least these statements are well cited - look up the article for the inline citations at the section Political activities and commentary
She mostly serves as a political pundit, sometimes creating controversy ranging from rowdy uprisings at some of the colleges where she speaks to protracted discussions in the media. Time magazine's John Cloud once observed that Coulter "likes to shock reporters by wondering aloud whether America might be better off if women lost the right to vote.". This was in reference to her statement that "it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.". Similarly, in an October 2007 interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said:
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care—and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?' "
The soccer moms/democrats quote has been around already in this thread, I can see that, but it seems to make the point that she casts certain large groups of society and their voting muscle as parasitical in themselves: they are voting and acting the way they do because they want to be cranky whiners and get pampered by the state.
For the record, her arguments are being borrowed outside of the U.S. too. She's making this trick quick stopper argument that if citizens, activists, artists or members of a profession are advancing a new issue, or pitching a reform of something, trying to get the question into the wider political arena - a pitched issue of which they can't, as individuals
here and now, cover the entire cost for getting it through into law, or for keeping it going once it has become law, then they are hypocrite morons (as soon as they want to get it to mainstream attention and galvanize a movement around those issues) and represent only a parasite interest. While the lobbying power of big business behind the scenes or tv channels doing "news" with an agenda wouldn't represent any kind of partisan interest, see, they have the money to advance their issues, it's their money
(um, though it might just as likely be loaned at a friendly bank or the fruit of rogue business practises) so they are in the right! Now, that one's been widely copied and I'd say she's a direct source for it. You could see it as a move of self-interest too: that kind of idea of what the rules of the game should look like helps punditism of course, it makes the talk pundits and PR agents prime players.